Talk:Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM lens

What's the point of using a Canon template for Sigma lenses that are available for various lens mounts?--Sitacuisses 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the specific use of the photographic lenses infobox, since that is as far as I can tell, is not Canon specific? Or do you mean assigning it to the category of Canon lenses, in which case I see no problem cutting that. ChristopherBorcsok 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.229.0 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
The section labeled Controversy is dreadful and almost certainly original research. If the various claims can't be substantiated I propose deletion. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is completely original research, and is not NPOV. While I have read such claim on various online chat forum's. I have read few comments from reliable, significant source. I do think that some of the statements are true. This lens does have soft corners, but this information must be from a good source. When I created the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 article, I included a Advantages & Problems section. I made sure to keep it a NPOV section. I believe this is important. The goal of the wikian is to not praise or bash what is being discussed, but to give the reader as much information that is relevant to the subject. Whether its good or bad. . . I'm going to try and find some reliable sources, do some heavy deletion of non NPOV text, and try to keep things balanced. Nebrot (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Optical properties section
The controversy section has apparently been edited and renamed into Optical properties. IMO, the claims are still controversial and poorly referenced. A discussion board is not a reliable source. Personally I disagree with some of the statements made, but neither my nor any others personal opinions/subjective experiences should appear in a Wiki article. Also, I agree with users 83.104.249.240 and Nebrot, that this looks like original research. I propose deletion of the entire section, since little has been done to remedy it for well over a year now. Charlie (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)