Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:46 am, "Calvin Sambrook" wrote:

Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored
or
in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
retailer instead but that's another story for later.


If you go to McDonalds to eat, don't bitch about the food.

That's a bit harsh, accepting that Sigma are at the cheaper end I'd expect
performance which wasn't as good as more expensive lenses. Slower focus,
softer, more CA, noisier - they are all things which one can choose to
accept in a cheaper lens or one can decide those matter to you enough to pay
more. A life of two months is definitely unacceptable.

In the UK we now have a reasonably strong Sale of Goods Act which has an
assumption that (for non-perishable goods) if something breaks in the first
6 months it was was faulty at purchase unless the retailer can prove
otherwise. People are only just waking up to what that means in practice
and it can be hard work enforcing your rights (that will be the subject of
another post one day) but it does mean that manufacturers like Sigma can no
longer get away with the sort of things they once did.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:46 am, "Calvin Sambrook" wrote:
Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
retailer instead but that's another story for later.


If you go to McDonalds to eat, don't bitch about the food.

Right on the money. Or lack of it.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:54:42 -0700, nospam wrote:
: In article , Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
: to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga.
:
: agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.

If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses,
with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it
doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses
(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.

Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
one.

Bob

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

...................I personally don't think the
difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.
If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.


I now only own Canon lenses - some cheap e-bay ones and some new 'L' series
glass but never again will I buy non genuine lenses. For what I do it really
isn't worth the money saved.

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
one.

a few people do but it's a tiny tiny minority. sigma's market share is
well under 0.5%.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses,
with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it
doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses
(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.

With good budget OEM lenses are available, I personally don't think the
difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.

for you, but you don't speak for everyone. i think his point is that
the third party lens makers make lenses that nikon/canon do *not* make.

If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.

some third party lenses definitely deliver, just as some nikon/canon
lenses do not. it all depends on the particular lens.

John Navas wrote:

If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.

Wrong.

While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class
lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own for
image and build quality. These include:

Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
notably good portrait lens.

Sigma's 180mm macro.

Severa Tokina's.

And quite a few others.

Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
do not do at all.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
notably good portrait lens.

it's not just very good. it's *excellent*, one of the best macro lenses
made.

Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
do not do at all.

how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8

Alan Browne writes:
John Navas wrote:
If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.

Wrong.

While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class
lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own for
image and build quality.

Indeed. There have been, and are, great lenses from 3rd parties, and
there are also of course crap lenses from OEMs.

I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since it's
such an obviously silly statement. While many camera makers are also
excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on that, and
since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined interface,
they enjoy no particular advantage over others when making lenses for
their own platform.

-Miles

--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since it's
such an obviously silly statement.

i seem to recall he said he bought a third party lens once and got
burned, so he refuses to buy any other third party lenses, no matter
what. apparently he is not aware of the duds that nikon/canon make.

While many camera makers are also
excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on that, and
since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined interface,
they enjoy no particular advantage over others when making lenses for
their own platform.

true, but the exact mount protocol is still reverse engineered, and
many times not particularly well.

sigma in particular is known for needing lenses rechipped to work on
newer cameras. sigma also cheaps out and reuses cpu chips, which means
one lens might share its lens id with another lens, and that means that
the exif information in the photo will show incorrect data. it also
means that there can be a serious problem with the cameras that provide
for focus adjust, since they look at the mounted lens id to know
whether to apply a particular adjustment. it's actually amazing sigma
gets away with this crap.