It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively...
Not trying to get in the middle of this argument specifically, but it does seem like over half the contributors in this forum, find sport in reading things (and quoting them) selectively, and sometimes out of context (happens to me a lot)...So I guess I feel justified in doing it here. I see something I want to talk about it, so I quote it alone, by itself...then I expound my own sentiment.
The more egregious culprits seem to be absent in the above exchange, so that's a good thing. It gets extra annoying when their posts appear to exceed 8000 words. At about the 3000 word mark, there are self indulgent, narcissistic diva issues going on...Again I'm not
directing this part at any of you in this thread.
However, this type of thing, happens in literally every forum, not just here...as most of you know I'm sure.
Some of you need to chillax a bit. So what if one person has had bad experiences with specific Sigma lenses, and the other not so much? I recently bought a much maligned Sigma telephoto zoom lens, and am glad I did. I had an open mind, and wanted to try something for myself. I found most of the naysaying, nitpicking negative reviews, to be just that. It cost half what the similar Canon model cost (and that Canon design is nearly a decade older). The Canon replacement or "update", if it ever comes, will cost 3x to 4x what the current Sigma lens sells for. Will it be 4x better? Certainly not. Will it be 2x better? No. Is the current one 2x better? No, optically I say it's not any
What's important is, can you get a specific lens to work the way you want it to, at the price you are willing to pay, making compromises if necessary (however small) you are willing to live with? I've been able to do that.
With the money I saved, I put towards buying a 6D. Talk about a radically good camera for the money, and money far better spent than on an old white Canon lens...just so I could say I have one like all the millions of other blowhards who have one.
So, what's less important, is buying a name brand for the snob appeal. I'm not saying that's the only reason to buy Canon glass. Most Canon glass is fine and dandy (I have a couple of L lenses), but some of it is highly overvalued for what it is. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is a stark example, given the new Sigma offering.
Will Canon's update to their 35mm be worth the extra money, over the Sigma? I say no, no matter how sharp it is. More sharpness over the Sigma lens, clearly is not called for...unless you are a pixel peeper with a future 60 MP full frame body, and you never print smaller than 40 x 60 inches at 240 or 300 dpi. In other words, you probably aren't that person, nor is anyone...especially if you have to wait till 2017 for that camera that you want so much, to finally come down the pike...You're pining away for a pipe dream that is not even necessary to perform mind-blowingly terrific photography...today, in the here and now!