Is the workmanship of Sigma lenses really inferior?

Sigma is the most enterprising company among the major lens sub-factories. New products are emerging one after another, and the technical performance is improving with each passing day, almost as much as the original factory.

Sigma lenses use more engineering plastics than others, and they are relatively thin. The quality of some products is not up to par (mainly because the soft cable is easy to break, the zoom mechanical structure is easy to get stuck, etc.), and the quality is consistent. not good. Although there have been improvements, it still cannot compare with Tokina, which is also a subsidiary manufacturer, and even has a gap with Tamron. In terms of workmanship and materials, I feel that Sigma is really not commensurate with its status in optical and electronic technology. The 10-20/4-5.6 is an EX professional lens. Its workmanship and materials are much better than those of amateur lenses. So far, I have not heard of any problems with its mechanical quality. Its optical performance is also quite popular among users. But I am really disgusted with the so-called EX coating on Sigma lens bodies. This matte coating has no luster, no texture, and is not strong. It leaves marks when you touch it. It is very easy to get dirty, and it looks like a plant on a cheap package. Velvet craftsmanship is really difficult to relate to the appearance of expensive and precise optical instruments. Fortunately, the coating area of ??Sigma's ultra-wide-angle zoom head is not large. It is said that the new product has changed to the traditional spraying process. I hope you can catch up.

Haha