Ali Shah wrote:
> Bill Pearce wrote:
>> I have heard and read that Sigma QC is worse that Canon's......
>>
Remember, you, or whoever you have listened to, are listening only to
those who have had a problem. And since Canon sells far more lenses than
Sigma (or, I suppose, anybody else), a much lower rate of problems in
Canons would still result in a higher number of actual complaints than
for Sigma. QC is a % thing. Even the occasional Leica doesn't work the
way it is intended to. Perfection, even if possible, would be
considerably less affordable than a Leica.
(I am also of the opinion that a significant proportion of QC complaints
about lenses, of all brands, are due to operator error. But that's
another rant.)
> Sigma does seem to have QC issues.......
>
And what, exactly, does that have to do with the price of eggplant?
If I am a potential buyer of lenses for my own label, I have choices as
to what I buy, including QC. So I pay an extra 7% for only ones that
work, have them put my look and name on them, mark up the price a little
more to pay for my care and support and I'm off to the races.
And if they can't do QC properly, I do it, perhaps paying a bit more
apiece for the right to send back any that don't meet my own QC standards.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|