Which Wide Angle Would You Choose ?

[ctorry]

If the entity is not registered for GST there is no require to include GST in the price (ie. turnover below $75,000) I find this difficult to believe in DWI's case. The GST legislation clearly states Price is GST inclusive Value is GST exclusive. Any international entity operating in Australia require an ABN and is require to lodge statutory return with the ATO on an Annual Basis.

If this entity is not operating with in the Taxation Legislation and anyone is concerned, the entity should be reported to teh ATO. Additionally they should be reported under the Trade Practice Act.

I don't know if this is the case with DWI but this is what anyone if they are really concerned with this entity or any other entity operating outside of the relevant guideline should do.

[maccaroneski]

No need in this case, Tony. Advertising goods for sale to the general public without including GST in the advertised price is illegal, plain and simple, no two ways about it.

When you click on the B & H banner in the "sponsors" section of this website, are the charges that you see appearing inclusive of GST? Are B & H thus in breach of Australian law too? Assume for a moment that AP's servers are located in Australia (they may well be however I have no idea, however presumably B & H has many similar banner ads on sites hosted in Australia).

I guess the question I'm asking is "when is an entity "operating in Australia" for the purposes of the GST legislation?"

[ctorry]

Reading the GST legislation and I don't know if this applicable to either of these entities. These comments are very general and not specific in nature.

Supplies made by non-resident can be taxable supplies in certain circumstances (i.e. whre the supply is connected with Australia and the non-resident is registered or required to be registed dueits GST turnover from supplies exceeding $75,000.

This could cause practicial issues if the entity does not have a presence in Australia and to help overcome this the ATO has allowed for a reverse charge regime (i.e. the importer pays the GST not the importing entity). Any agreement for a reserve charge can be made where: 1) the supply is not carried on through an enterprise carried on by the non-resident supplier in Australia (no permenant establishment). 2) The recipient is registed or required to be registered.

The reverse charges regime does not apply if this is made through a resident agent, who will be liable to pay the GST.

For registration purposes, supplies falling under the reverse charges regime, do not form part of the $75,000 turnover for the offshore entity (i.e no requirement for the offshore entity to register unless supplies outside of the reverse charges regime exceed $75,000).

Example

ABC imports to XYZ, XYZ has a permanent establishment in Australia and is required to be registered for GST. - Reverse charges regime can operate.

ABC imports to Mum and Dad for their hobby - Mum and Dad are not registered for GST nor are they requried to be registed. Reverse Charges regime can't operate and offshore entity will need to register and pay GST.

Definition of a Permanent Establishment for the GST Act - "A place at or thorugh which a person carried on any business" and includes factory, office, farm, mine or market. It also includes:
* a place whre the supplier is carrying on business through an agent, a place where the supplier has or is using or installing substantial equipment, supplier is enganged in construction work, supplier manufactures, assembles, processed, packed or distrubed by a related party. In the case of software if the software is promoted by an employee of the permanent establishment in Australia their is sufficent connection.

In terms of Pricing
Failure to disclose GST in the price of a taxable supply may constitute an offence. When an entities supply is taxable, quoting only the GST -exclusive pirce may contravene the provision of the Trade Practice Act 1974 relating to: *misleading and deceptive conduction (s52) or *false or misleading statemetn with respect to price (s53(e)). Please note that a price is not in contravention if it is quoted as follows $300 + GST (providing reference to GST is made). Exception to this rule primarily relate to Auctions which may be GST inclusive or GST exclusive but the basis of bidding must be known at the beginning of the Auction. ACCC and ebay actually have an agreement that all sellers on the site must include any applicable GST in the auction or Buy it Now price.

As stated at the start of this post this is general comments only and are not specific in any way, shape or form.

[fairy bombs]

I just bought a Canon 10-22 mm F 3.5-5.6 from DWI for $772 delivered.

I looked at the non camera brand options,they were 'cheaper',but the Canon was much better quality images.

I would rather spend the extra dollars and not have to worry about gear letting me down.

A few people mention other lenses have lower F 2 .8. A wide angle lens you do not need F 2.8

For glam photography yes,But a wide view lens is for landscape,buildings and similar where one would

be shooting at F 8 to f 13.

Hope this helps with your purchase.

[Roosta]

I just bought a Canon 10-22 mm F 3.5-5.6 from DWI for $772 delivered.

I looked at the non camera brand options,they were 'cheaper',but the Canon was much better quality images.
.

Hi fairy bombs, just intrestred in what third party lenses you are refering to???? I'm in the process of comparrision between Sigma 10-20 F3.5 / Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 and the Tokina 12-24 F4.

Could you let me know what your findings, where and what was it that sold you on the Canon 10-22, as I haven't ruled it out, just taking cost into account.

As with all third party lenses(especially Sigma over the years) the build consistancy has been an issue. So really intrested in your findings.

Thanks,

[daniel5600]

every test ive seen on the net has shown the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 both similar if not better than the Canon, especially the Tokina. and at a lot less cost than the Canon.

[fairy bombs]

'Roosta',I tested the sigma lens and the canon,side by side in the field,I also found a 'Brick wall' test.

And on both accounts,the Canon left the Sigma for dead.

I would rather pay the price of the Canon one any day,even if there was no DWI and I had to

pay $1000 for it I'd still buy it.Lovely results,the Sigma was not in the same league (just my opinion)

Others feel the Sigma is good,but everyone at the Field day who saw results,said the canon was the pick.

(I did a test,showed images ,but did not tell viewers which images were by which lens)all picked the Canon

without knowing.So I hope this helps,I will try and find link to brick wall test,

[PH005]

Just an update on my Sigma 10-20 purchase.

I just recieved a pleasant phone call from a very polite person from DWI in Sydney to inform me that my purchase order had cleared, and to confirm postal address, and let me know that my lens would be shipped by courier today, and to expect it in the next 2 days. I find that to be Top class PR work in this day and age. Oh and they also confirmed it with an e mail as well. Well done DWI.

ps. I rate people and businesses on how they treat ME.

[Roosta]

'Roosta',I tested the sigma lens and the canon,side by side in the field,I also found a 'Brick wall' test.

And on both accounts,the Canon left the Sigma for dead.

Thanks mate, That would be great, appreciate the feedback....

[fairy bombs]

To be honest 'Roosta',over the years I have used lots of different kit in the field,and these' arm chair experts' that look down a list

of specs and prices ,and come to a opinion,without actually using the said kit,Really can lead a lot of people astray.Over the years when I

have bought kit,that is considerably cheaper than other similar gear I have always come unstuck.In this example the re is mention of lenses

around 450-550 dollars,I felt that spending an extra few hundred on the Canon version,would be the way to go.If these others are that much cheaper

Something has got to give.Without spending a huge amount on a 5D3 and 16-35 L,a good canon crop with the canon 10-22 compares very well along

side the above top gear,In my research it was stated by experienced photographer's they only way to tell the difference between the above two kits was to

Pixel peep.I'd have the Canon over the Sigma any day (just my opinion)

Cheers

[Roosta]

To be honest 'Roosta',over the years I have used lots of different kit in the field,and these' arm chair experts' that look down a list

of specs and prices ,and come to a opinion,without actually using the said kit,Really can lead a lot of people astray.

Thanks again for your feedback, It's not any easier to choose, Like I say, the price isn't a blocker to the Canon 10-22mm and as you mention "arm chair experts". I've just read last night in Sept Issue "DSLR User Mag" from UK, it has a write up on the Sig 10-20 F3.5, the Tamron SP AF 10-24 F3.5-4.5, Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24 F3.5-4.5 G ED, and the Tokina AT-X 12-24mm F4 AF PRO DX 11, and the Tokina wins in all departments, just mind you, over the Nikkor, mainly due to price, so even the experts are in on it for price.

But, It has a side bar area and states for the money, if a Canon user, look at the 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM... Compares it to the Oly 9-18 F4-5.6 and the Sony SAL118 11-18MM F4.5-5.6 DT as the best on the market for there intended use, But you pay for it.. LOL No Shit Sherlock.. Sorry, made me laugh when some of the pro's seem to have a very dry sense of humor, maybe due to being an english mag, english sense of humor, I don't know. Any way...

I did speak to my Local Pro Camera Shop yesterday, they are holding a night shoot seminar, which i've singed up for (evening Lowlight Pro running it), my prefered form of capture, they are bring a bucket load of gear, just so happens the Pro is a Canon user Yipee, so will probally walk away with the Canon, good if I can get it as a demo "message to brain, work on that"

Thanks again, will compare tests and post some pics, hopefully from Monday night.

[Tatts]

Found this link last night, you guys might be interested. Has image comparisons taken with Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina UWA lenses.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...ron_tokina.htm

[Quietguy]

Errr ... PH005 .. you do know that DWI are operating outside of Australian law and that their normal business practices are completely illegal? Now that might or might not worry you, but you'd be a fool to imagine that you have a snowball's chance in hell of enforcing a warranty claim against them. Think about it.

Hi just butting in as I recently bought a lens from DWI, that was faulty on arrival. It turns out they have a service agent in Sydney who handles their warranty work.

As I was in Sydney, I dropped my lens into their office where they gave it a quick check to make sure the fault was in the lens and not in my camera. They gave me a receipt, and about 2 weeks later the lens was returned to me per courier as I live in rural NSW.

There was no charge for the repair which they had done by Canon Australia, or for returning it to me.

They did offer me the option of a replacement lens, but I would have had to return the old lens to Hong Kong - I would have done that but was hoping for a quick fix as I needed the lens for an event I was attending.

I don't know what you mean by 'operating illegally' though - buying stuff from overseas is a legal activity.

Incidently I might mention that their delivery was remarkedly speedy - ordered my camera (550D) from CameraHouse in Melbourne on a Thursday, and it arrived the following Thursday. Order the lens from DWI in Hong Kong on the Tues - it arrived the following Friday! Is Hong Kong is closer than Vic to NSW? :-)

So I have no complaints about DWI and would certainly buy from them again