patrick_crossfield

<p>Have a look at the extensive testing undertaken by Ken Rockwell regarding the 70-210mm f4... Its not a cheap consumer lens at all. If you make derogatory remarks such as the one by Gil Pruitt, please make sure the review is accurate and written by someone who knows what they are talking about.</p>

<p>Sounds similar to an issue with my PC and card reader - constantly requiring a format after downloading files....just be a little careful - the last time I did this, inserted the card in the card reader, it wanted to format the card even though I had many photographs on there. I rescued the files, junked the CF card, and bought a new one....no more problems.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They say they break too much, they don't even sell them.<br>

This is clearly a misstatement. It should read<br /> "Because they don't sell them, they even say they break too much."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both of these statements are incorrect. It should read: They do not sell them because in their opinion, Sigma lenses break" (You cannot have "break too much" - they either break, or do not break)<br>

I use Sigma lenses, and have compared the results to a 35-135mm USM with Ft manual focus ( a classic Canon lens - I bought it specifically to compare with the Sigma) and guess what? I prefer the Sigma. Oh, and IS? Did Ansel Adams use IS? Man Ray? No.....come on, its a marketing ploy! Get a tripod!</p>