Yakim Peled wrote:
I wish Canon would make a 50/1.4 Mk II with improved optics, ring USM and BQ similar to the 85/1.8. That way we could have at least one 50mm lens that we could recommend without reservations.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I've been waiting for this lens too. I thought the Sigma release would prod Canon. I'd be happy with better (or consistently good) WO performance and another rounded aperture blade. I like the color as it is and the contrast as it is, though it gets better stopped down. I still maintain that the EF is one of Canon's sharpest lenses-stopped down, at least normal range lenses.
These arguments and opinions are nothing to do with ethics or morals for those honest ppl.
It is just simply how the businesses are run.
I own a retail wine/liquor store and we guarantee 100% satisfaction of our product.
Guess what happens when a customer returns a bottle of opened wine because she/he didn't like it? We give them their money back.
Guess what happens when a customer returns 2 bottles of wine after buying 12bottles to get a case discount at the time of purchase? We give the money back for the returned items.
Are they using the system? Maybe and maybe not.
Guess what happens to the returned products? They go back to distributors(wholesalers) to get our money back.
What I'm trying to say is all these extra costs and expenses are already calculated into the cost/profit margin of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers. As a business owner, its more profitable for me to guarantee the satisfaction and get more customers into my business than having less customers. Yes, there will be customers who will use our store return policy to profit their needs, but its perfectly fine with me. Why? he/she will come back and buy more from me. Will he/she find the wine that would fit their taste? Most likely. AND they won't hesitate to buy more wines because they know they can return if they don't like it.
At the end, we find them what they want and they pay me.
sangdabom73 wrote:
These arguments and opinions are nothing to do with ethics or morals for those honest ppl.
It is just simply how the businesses are run.
I own a retail wine/liquor store and we guarantee 100% satisfaction of our product.
Guess what happens when a customer returns a bottle of opened wine because she/he didn't like it? We give them their money back.
Guess what happens when a customer returns 2 bottles of wine after buying 12bottles to get a case discount at the time of purchase? We give the money back for the returned items.
Are they using the system? Maybe and maybe not.
Guess what happens to the returned products? They go back to distributors(wholesalers) to get our money back.
What I'm trying to say is all these extra costs and expenses are already calculated into the cost/profit margin of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers. As a business owner, its more profitable for me to guarantee the satisfaction and get more customers into my business than having less customers. Yes, there will be customers who will use our store return policy to profit their needs, but its perfectly fine with me. Why? he/she will come back and buy more from me. Will he/she find the wine that would fit their taste? Most likely. AND they won't hesitate to buy more wines because they know they can return if they don't like it.
At the end, we find them what they want and they pay me. ...Show more →
So if I went to your store, got myself 3 bottles of $60 wine, opened all of them up, tried them out, and then returned all 3 bottles with no intention of getting replacements, you are OK with that? Cosco was OK with this privelege...in fact they had a no questions asks return policy for 1 year after purchase. So many people abused this privelege that Cosco removed it. Give some people an inch and they will take a mile.
The next time I want to buy a car, I will go to the dealer and buy three of them.
I will then proceed to drive them to a shop with a dyno and have their engines revved up to redline several times.
I will then pick the one who made the most power and return the other two.
Does that sound fair?
P.S.
And before anyone says engines are all the same and produce the same power, no, they are not and they do not.
chez wrote:
So if I went to your store, got myself 3 bottles of $60 wine, opened all of them up, tried them out, and then returned all 3 bottles with no intention of getting replacements, you are OK with that? Cosco was OK with this privelege...in fact they had a no questions asks return policy for 1 year after purchase. So many people abused this privelege that Cosco removed it. Give some people an inch and they will take a mile.
Sure!! As long as they are not empty. It doesn't take whole bottle to tell if you like it or not. We usually tell customers that they can bring back the wines that they dont like, but not emptied =)
As for the Costco policy, they still do take returns after 1 year, but excluding certain electronics.
fraga wrote:
The next time I want to buy a car, I will go to the dealer and buy three of them.
I will then proceed to drive them to a shop with a dyno and have their engines revved up to redline several times.
I will then pick the one who made the most power and return the other two.
Does that sound fair?
P.S.
And before anyone says engines are all the same and produce the same power, no, they are not and they do not.
Fraga,
You are entirely talking about two different businesses who run their businesses differently. The car dealers will never guarantee your satisfaction of the vehicle. Once you drive it out after you sign the contract, it belongs to you.
The store OP bought his lenses from guarantees the satisfaction and take returns for full refunds. It is their choice to run their business and I'm sure they know not only what the risks/losses are, but more importantly also what the profit would be by doing their business as they are.
Sang, you do have a point, at least to a certain extent.
I was going to write a long post why I don't fully agree with you.
But time is scarce and, quite honestly, besides being quite time consuming (I could take up to an hour writing it, since english is not my mother language) I don't know if I would be able to explain my point of view properly.
I will just say that laws in America are definitely different than those in Europe.
And retailers also run their businesses a little different on the other side of the pond, as the British say.
So I guess I would be wise for me to refrain from opinate in this thread since America has a very different culture and, consequently, very different legislation.
Afterall, what is legal or "right" or even moral in one country might not be on another.
The retailer could easily stop this type of behavior but for some reason chooses not to. Really, how hard is it exactly for the retailer to detect this practice and institute a restocking fee as part of the terms of sale? Under what circumstances could a customer do this for legitimate reasons, that the retailer would then upset by reminding them they would have to pay for the restocking?
If I were the retailer and this sort of thing was cutting into my business it would be SUPER easy to detect it and put a policy in place to stop it. But if that is going to piss off my customers when all they want is a reliable product, I'd rather make my customer happy and try to get the manufacturer to pay up.
Richard Nye wrote:
The Sigma is sharper from f/1.4 to f/2.8, after than the Canon has a slight edge.
The bokeh of the Sigma lens is more pleasing (to my eye) and less "nervous".
I think the Sigma would make a better portrait lens and the Canon a better landscape lens (IMO).
And these are the two reasons that people pay big bucks for fast glass; if I only cared about performance when stopped down past f/2.8, then I wouldn't have purchased an f/1.4 lens. I want sharpness at f/2.0 and larger, and I want beautiful bokeh. And the Sigma has both of those.
And FWIW, my Sigma 50 was perfect out of the box, on a body that is not MA capable (1DmkII).
The retailer could easily stop this type of behavior but for some reason chooses not to. Really, how hard is it exactly for the retailer to detect this practice and institute a restocking fee as part of the terms of sale? Under what circumstances could a customer do this for legitimate reasons, that the retailer would then upset by reminding them they would have to pay for the restocking?
If I were the retailer and this sort of thing was cutting into my business it would be SUPER easy to detect it and put a policy in place to stop it. But if that is going to piss off my customers when all they want is a reliable product, I'd rather make my customer happy and try to get the manufacturer to pay up....Show more →
Wickerprints, your statements ( "For the last time...." ) make it sound like this topic is black and white, where from reality, there are many shades of gray here. Not everyone feels comfortable with "dishonestly" ordering 3 lenses when in fact they don't even really plan on keeping any of them. Just because the retailer has no restocking fee, does not make this practice OK does it? Do you really deep down feel this is an appropriate thing to do, or do you just like to argue?
chez wrote:
Wickerprints, your statements ( "For the last time...." ) make it sound like this topic is black and white, where from reality, there are many shades of gray here. Not everyone feels comfortable with "dishonestly" ordering 3 lenses when in fact they don't even really plan on keeping any of them. Just because the retailer has no restocking fee, does not make this practice OK does it? Do you really deep down feel this is an appropriate thing to do, or do you just like to argue?
I meant "for the last time" in the sense that it's the last time I'm going to belabor the point. Not that I feel that it is a done discussion. I hope that clears up what I meant by that.
Second, I personally wouldn't do this sort of thing. It's not that I would feel uncomfortable doing it per se--it's that I would not want to take the risk of having something happen to the lenses while they were in my possession. I wouldn't want to be stuck with a bigger problem as a result of trying to save myself some effort in the first place, if that makes any sense. I find the practice intrinsically risky, compared to simply buying one copy, checking it, and if not up to standards, exchanging it for another like most people would.
But all that said, no matter how I try to look at the situation, I can't come to the conclusion that it's appropriate for me to tell anyone else how to go about their buying decisions. If they want to do it that way, and the retailer isn't stopping them, then it's not my place to make a stink about it. Does it indirectly cost me and the rest of the consumers who don't do such things? Perhaps, but unless everyone else is doing it, it can't be all that much. It's not worth b***hing about pennies when I'm spending thousands on lenses. That cost calculation might change, however, if everyone and their mom started to do it too.
Richard Nye wrote:
A friend of mine buys backpacking gear from a large, on-line retailer. They not only have no stocking fee, they pay the shipping on returns. My friend will order 3 pair of boots, not knowing which pair will fit best. Honestly, I think that's a great idea. How else is someone going to know which boot fits? If the fit isn't acceptable for any of the 3, he sends them all back. He could go to REI, have the staff spend time fitting him, and then leave only to order it on-line, but he doesn't. If the retailer is going to sell goods whose performance can only be judged by use, then the retailer must expect the product to be lightly used and possibly returned.
...or just buy the boots from REI. By the time you factor in the dividend, they are likely going to be a very similar price. It's amazing what people will do just to save a few bucks.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Makes sense to me no one wants to pay for a brand new lens that has been tested by a customer. After you have done your testing the lens is no longer new and I know the big stores do not sell them and send them back to the manufacture.
If the item is defective, nearly all manufactures will return it for a credit. If it is simply not what the original purchaser wanted, most manufactures will not accept the item unless the store makes up a reason why it is defective.
In the case of the sigma lenses, none of them were defective, so they will likely go back into inventory. If the store chooses to sell as open box items, they will likely take a hit much larger than the retail markup, and take a loss on the item for the next buyer.
Nothing about your tests adhere to scientific / imerical testing standards.
You could be simply a victim of sample variation.
Your results are interesting to read, but certainly not the final word in anything.
Ben Horne wrote:
...or just buy the boots from REI. By the time you factor in the dividend, they are likely going to be a very similar price. It's amazing what people will do just to save a few bucks.
I go through Zappos every time--free shipping to and from and they do not care if you order multiple pairs of different sizes to try out. As long as they get back to them in like new shape there is no issue. I did the same thing with the Sigma 50/1.4...again, with no issue.
sangdabom73 wrote:
These arguments and opinions are nothing to do with ethics or morals for those honest ppl.
It is just simply how the businesses are run.
I own a retail wine/liquor store and we guarantee 100% satisfaction of our product.
Guess what happens when a customer returns a bottle of opened wine because she/he didn't like it? We give them their money back.
Guess what happens when a customer returns 2 bottles of wine after buying 12bottles to get a case discount at the time of purchase? We give the money back for the returned items.
Are they using the system? Maybe and maybe not.
Guess what happens to the returned products? They go back to distributors(wholesalers) to get our money back.
What I'm trying to say is all these extra costs and expenses are already calculated into the cost/profit margin of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers. As a business owner, its more profitable for me to guarantee the satisfaction and get more customers into my business than having less customers. Yes, there will be customers who will use our store return policy to profit their needs, but its perfectly fine with me. Why? he/she will come back and buy more from me. Will he/she find the wine that would fit their taste? Most likely. AND they won't hesitate to buy more wines because they know they can return if they don't like it.
At the end, we find them what they want and they pay me. ...Show more →
I must confess I admire this type of behaviuor, and I admire all those who practice it as it's extremely rare in my country. I salute you.
sangdabom73 wrote:
These arguments and opinions are nothing to do with ethics or morals for those honest ppl.
It is just simply how the businesses are run.
I own a retail wine/liquor store and we guarantee 100% satisfaction of our product.
Guess what happens when a customer returns a bottle of opened wine because she/he didn't like it? We give them their money back.
Guess what happens when a customer returns 2 bottles of wine after buying 12bottles to get a case discount at the time of purchase? We give the money back for the returned items.
Are they using the system? Maybe and maybe not.
Guess what happens to the returned products? They go back to distributors(wholesalers) to get our money back.
What I'm trying to say is all these extra costs and expenses are already calculated into the cost/profit margin of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers. As a business owner, its more profitable for me to guarantee the satisfaction and get more customers into my business than having less customers. Yes, there will be customers who will use our store return policy to profit their needs, but its perfectly fine with me. Why? he/she will come back and buy more from me. Will he/she find the wine that would fit their taste? Most likely. AND they won't hesitate to buy more wines because they know they can return if they don't like it.
At the end, we find them what they want and they pay me. ...Show more →
Would your viewpoint be any different if the manufacturer did not refund you for the goods, and people still returned the product while intentionally trying to game the system? Would this lead to a change in store policy?
For those of you thoughts of buying 3 lense for testing purpose then returning them. Would the end result (to the retailer&manufacturer) be any different than if I BUY THE 200mmL, and 1D4... go home.. have fun.. try it.. then return it??........
I mean.. buying and returning is a policy should be allow, but ABusing it is another things.
TO THE OP> Why didnt you just went to one of the local retailer and do it? (if you dont have a local cam shop nearby, then just forget that lense)
Nye, you dog, did you drink half that lens? Did you run it to redline several times on a dynamometer??
Does anyone really believe, with the Sigma 50's notorious inconsistency, that each returned copy at each retailer went back to the factory? Heck, the returned lenses have at least even odds of working fine on someone elses's camera, which is exactly where most of the returned ones ended up.
