DSLRUsers.com

heres a link to an interesting article
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09 ... sigma-saga

Ouch...

Do forum members who own sigma lenses have similar problems?

I had the Sigma 50-150 and 120-300 for a year or so and never had a problem personally. I know quite a few ppl using the 120-300 and only one has had a warranty claim to date.

It looks like most issues came down to a couple of particular lenses here.

Fingers crossed that my 180mm Macro does not get Sigma'd else I will be most displeased (hmm insurance seems so much more important now - any donations towards me getting camera insurance is much appreciated!!)

I have not noticed anything *touches wood* I am pretty happy with the lens, but am not happy with the finish which has marred (looks like a water mark but cant seem to move it)in a few places already (lens hood and near the tripod collar). Leigh showed me his 30mm f/1.4 that had lost a lot of paint though!

.I had an old manual 80-200/3.5-... that was a dog .... by far the worst lens i've ever had.
.had an old manual 28/2.8 that was a ripper

.still have a EX 28-70/2.8 that is not bad but not spectacular as well
.have a 18-125/3.5- that is very good for it perceived status as a consumer grade lens and is a very handy range
.have an old manual 8/4 fisheye thats IQ is pretty poor but is a fun lens

none of them had any mechanical problems though

Matt. K wrote:Do forum members who own sigma lenses have similar problems?

er NO..... and I have 5 Sigma lens from 10mm To 500mm...... does the comparison say if Sigma is rented more often than Nikon and therefor more open to damage.....

I regularly use a 120-300 and 1.4xTC with no dramas at all. Great lens.

big pix wrote:

Matt. K wrote:Do forum members who own sigma lenses have similar problems?

er NO..... and I have 5 Sigma lens from 10mm To 500mm...... does the comparison say if Sigma is rented more often than Nikon and therefor more open to damage.....

Yes.

It says that Sigma represents just 7% of their lens inventory, but over 30% of their failure rate, per year, compared to less than 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.

While we have not experienced any significant failure in the two Sigmas that we have here, we noticed that, on a less-than-a-year-old Sigma 30mm f/1.4, the external paint is just ... falling off!

One hopes (and prays) that this does not happen to the internal paint, as that can cause all manner of problems: internal reflections, paint particles attaching to the lens elements.

This seems to be, sadly, reflective of a return to the Sigma of old.

Whilst one might be somewhat cynical and suggest that this might be a user issue, their comments regarding brand new, OOB lenses is not at all comforting.

And can you imagine what might happen were Wendell to rent one of their Sigma lenses?

For the past year I've been using the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and it has been delivering reasonable results except when I get into really challenging light conditions. Because of this I have always planned on moving onto the new Nikkor and flicking the Sigma on eBay.
With the impending price increases I decided two weeks ago to buy the Nikkor 24-70 and as you do, the first thing I decided to was lend the new lens to a friend. A job came up at short notice and I was content to use the Sigma and this is when I noticed it was not zooming.
I took it home, removed the rear assembly and discovered that one of the three small screw threads that keep the main body of the lens attached to the metal bayonet mount had broken... it is part of an average design in plastic... and there was no way it could be repaired without parts. After some consideration I decided it was simplest to put the lens into the bin... getting the part was going to be too much hassle (no to mention fitting it) and for the amount I was going to get in return I figured it was the least painful option.
This is the second Sigma zoom that I have binned.... by comparison, most of the Nikkor lenses that I have bought just seem to keep on trucking. I bought my 20-35 2.8 in 1994 and it is still a useful part of my kit... I am hoping I get a good 10-15 years out of this new lens!

I own the 105 macro, 12-24 and 70-200mm Sigma lenses and have to date had no problems at all.

If this company ascerts that the Sigma lenses have a very high failure rate it beggars the question, ”Why stock them?”

sirhc55 wrote:If this company ascerts that the Sigma lenses have a very high failure rate it beggars the question, ”Why stock them?”

I think that's the point

"beggars the question"? Say what?
I suspect you mean "begs the question"! The question isn't being made into a beggar, but rather the situation invites ("begs") to have the question asked...


Anyway, to stay on topic:

In 2001 I bought a Sigma 17-35mm HSM (a model which turned out to be optically poor and has since been replaced by a newer Sigma 17-35mm design). We had to get 3 of them before I got one I was happy with. The first one the shop returned straight away before telling me it had arrived, the 2nd one I refused in the store (the focus ring made a nasty grinding noise) and I took the 3rd.
I was expecting this, as 'net feedback indicated that Sigma's QC sigma was quite high. That report seems to indicate that (at least for some models) it's got that way again.

However, even after getting rid of that Sigma 17-35mm (optically it "greatly frustrated me" and I eventually replaced it with a Canon 17-40mm) I did later invest in a Sigma 180mm macro lens (which I still have and use although I occasionally consider switching to the Sigma 150mm macro). That one I took the risk to buy it mail order from the U.S. Sigma have always had some lenses (including their macros) with a good reputation. If people started reporting QC problems with the Sigma macros I'd definitely be concerned!

DaveB wrote:"beggars the question"? Say what?
I suspect you mean "begs the question"! The question isn't being made into a beggar, but rather the situation invites ("begs") to have the question asked...

Dave, I think Chris was using beggars as a verb, not a noun, in which case the use was correct. In that term beggars means similar to exceed or exceed the questions capabilities. I of course will stand here ready to be corrected by Greg B, the oracle of correct communication.

DaveB wrote:"beggars the question"? Say what?
I suspect you mean "begs the question"! The question isn't being made into a beggar, but rather the situation invites ("begs") to have the question asked...

The verb 'beg' was 'back-formed' from 'beggar', originally a noun describing a mendicant pauper; but later became a verb, so that 'to beggar' meant to reduce the resources of someone or something.

In modern English you are correct Dave, but I’m an old bugger or is that bug

Thats interesting information, I bought my first Sigma today, the 10-20mm, and I am very impressed with it, a nice little piece of kit, and for $650, you cant get much wider withough upgrading to a full frame system. It works fine, but this article brings up some thoughts about what happens if it breaks, hmmm

sirhc55 wrote:If this company ascerts that the Sigma lenses have a very high failure rate it beggars the question, ”Why stock them?”

A question they answer actually:

We will not stock Sigma when there are better alternatives (70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 for example). We will continue to carry those Sigma lenses that are unique and where there aren’t more reliable options (120-300 f2.8 for example)

As for Sigma, I had a few Sigma lenses with my Pentax, including the 50-500 that got dragged around Africa with me on a truck for 4 weeks. I never had any issues except for the one that got dropped on the beach and I don't think any other lens would have faired much better. That being said, 4 lenses don't really constitute a reliable sample.

Actually, "begs the question" isn't really about something inviting an obvious question, it's about the fallacy of circular logic, despite the way it sounds. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... stion.html)

I've got four Sigmas ranging from 10mm to 300, along with a couple of TCs, and I'm more than happy with them. I look after them, but I certainly don't baby them.

came across the above also posted on "Nikon cafe" http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showth ... p?t=194348

....... the replies are an interesting read ......... if you have or are thinking getting Sigma it is a must read

i have had sigma 150/2.8 macro, 18-50/2.8 and 10-20. all perfromed fine and i never had a problem. whats more, i had a couple of sigmas back in the day shooting film, (canon mount), and they never had a problem either. i've had far more issues with tamron quality to be honest.

I have a 'grey market' Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and I love it. I agree the Nikon has better IQ (just) but it is FOUR times the cost.

I have a grey market Sigma 50-500mm and it's a fine lens but I don't use it enough to have really put it through it paces and fully tested it, however it's succeeded at everything I've asked of it apart from focussing quickly.

I have an Aussie bought Sigma 105mm Macro, I had very poor results with the D70S and just put it in the bottom of the bag. Since getting the D300 I've realised it has major back focussing issues. I used an adjustment in the D300 for a while but it's currently off at the doctors being 'fixed' - we'll see. BTW it beggars belief that a gear thread is reduced to a grammer bash.

Or even a grammar bash.