Sigma's deal not such a hot deal....

[G3]

I have a 170-500 Sigma zoom for EOS. It does not work properly on the 10D. Unfortunately it is one of the lenses that, according to Sigma, cannot be "re-chipped". The newer production 170-500 lenses will work on the 10D, so they said that I could trade my lens in and get a new one at a "discounted" price.

They said if I send my lens to them they will sell me a new one for $509.00. "Discounted"? They call that discounted? The "deal" they are offering sucks to put it bluntly. I have to send them $509.00 AND my lens? Then the lady said "That's less than half the normal price." Then I told her "The lens sells at B&H for $629.00". Her response.."Oh, I must have been looking at the wrong column here." Yeah, right. What that means is that they are allowing me $120.00 for my lens. I do not call that a good deal. If I were trying to trade the lens in at a dealer, I could understand being screwed this way a little better. I'm not. I'm simply trying to use an EOS lens on my EOS cameras. I like the lens. I did not want to get rid of it, I just wanted to use it.

I have other Sigma lenses, but I can unequivocally assure you that I'll never buy another one if this is the way they are going to treat me. If they had offered to split the difference with me...maybe I'd pay $300.00 to $350.00 for a new lens, I would consider that fair. I seriously doubt that Sigma has any more than that in manufacturing the lens.

This is absolutely not the way to treat a customer if you want to keep him as a customer.

OK, Sigma...if you are listening...awaiting your response if you have the 'nads to take it on....

[Scottes]

And that's why I buy Canon.

Sure, you can save money by buying Sigma/etc, but you get screwed ONCE and suddenly you're on the other side of bargain.

[G3]

You got that right.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Pretty bad...

You could certainly sell it on E-bay for more than $120.00..

[G3]

Yeah, I'm thinking about doing just that (and selling the rest of my Sigma lenses at the same time).

Then maybe I'll just get the 100-400L and the 17-40L and call it a day.

[kraterz]

Well, having been burnt by Sickma more than once, I've stopped buying anything with a Sigma label on it. You never know when something will stop working with an EOS body and if it's out of production, that's it - you're stuck with a very very expensive paperweight.

I've had better luck with Tamron. No problems so far. Not so lucky with Tokina either. Their 28-80 ATX Pro had a consistent front focusing problem.

[G3]

Yeah, I'm guessing (based on this experience) that they have enough business that they don't have to worry about repeat business or retaining the customer base they have...

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that Canon "L" glass is the ONLY way to go if you depend on your lenses. At least you know they will work, and if they don't Canon will take care of it without putting the screws to you.

[bob harris]

I sent my 28-200 in for rechipping and when they said it woudd be 2 months I ask about upgrading to the latse version and they keep mine.
They offered one for $179.00 and mine in trade. ((((Yea right))))))
Smile camera sells them for $149.00

[G3]

I sent the following Email to Sigma today. Let's see what the response (if any) is:


Dear Sigma,

I am a photographer. I use some of your lenses for my work. One in particular is a 170-500 mm zoom. I purchased this lens for my Canon EOS film bodies, but when I made the switch to a Canon Digital EOS camera, I expected the lens to function on that body as well. All of my old Canon EOS lenses work, why shouldn’t this Sigma? When I found that it would not function on the EOS Digital body, I went looking for a solution. I found out on one of the Photographer’s forums on the Internet that Sigma offered a “re-chipping” service. I called and was informed that the particular lens that I have could not be re-chipped. I was then informed of a “trade-in” program that Sigma offered for those who have lenses that can’t be re-chipped. The deal is that you send your old lens in and purchase a new one at a “discounted” price. I was told that for my lens that price was $509.00 plus my old lens and shipping.

B&H Camera sells this lens for $629.00. If you do the math, what that means is that you are offering me $120.00 for my lens. I hate to break the news to you, but that’s just not a good deal. I would be much better off to sell my lens on EBay for $350.00 or so and buy another one from B&H. Or, better yet, sell all of my Sigma lenses, never buy another one and stick to Canon “L” series lenses. At least I know if there is a compatibility problem in the future, Canon will take care of it without raking me over the coals.

Please understand that I like the quality of the Sigma lenses, and I had no intention of getting rid of them, but I depend on my lenses as much as my cameras. I have to know that the manufacturer will stand behind the product. In this case, the small amount of money that I saved over buying Canon lenses in the first place was a false savings. Now I will be force to spend more money to get back to what I need to work. Enough money, in fact, that It would have been as cheap to buy the “L” lenses in the first place. I will essentially have $1,200.00 in a $600.00 lens because I paid right at $700.00 for the lens when I bought it (this lens has come down about $100.00 in market price since I purchased it).

The sad thing is that you have a good product; you just simply don’t stand behind it like Canon would. Had you offered to meet me halfway, I would have considered that fair. Maybe I pay $300.00 plus my old lens and shipping. I’m pretty sure that would cover what you have in manufacturing the lens. Wouldn’t it be worth that to save an existing customer? Neither of us would be out a lot of money and I would be happy and you would keep a customer for future lens purchases.

Stories like this are all over the internet. I think this policy stands to lose you a considerable amount of business. By the way, another thing that is hurting you is the way your customer service personnel talk to your customers. Maybe a little customer service training would be in order? The one I spoke to told me that Sigma didn’t really want my old lens, they just wanted me to send it to them because they have to make sure that I qualify to buy a lens from them at this “discount” and that I’m not just trying to get a new lens at cheap price. Excuse me??? Are they accusing me of trying to pull some sort of scam? If they want proof that I purchased the lens, why don’t they just look at the Warranty registration records? What’s up with that?

At any rate, I really don’t expect this letter to get past the first person that pulls it off the email server, but I figured it was worth a shot. If I don’t hear anything back then I will assume that it was not forwarded to the appropriate people, or that those folks just don’t care. In that case, I will just go ahead and get rid of the Sigma lenses and switch back to Canon and inform everyone on the forums as to the outcome so that they can make a more informed decision when making their lens purchases. Many of these folks are amateurs, but there are also a great many professional photographers on these forums and we do talk. We regularly exchange information on how well this or that product performs or how the company itself performs. Many, many purchase decisions are decided based largely on this information exchange.

I’m thinking that you may want to reconsider this exchange policy. It is way out of line and does not reflect a commitment to customer service and satisfaction. If that’s not something that matters to you, then feel free to hit the old delete key on this Email.

[Belmondo]

Go get 'em!!

It's a great letter. The cynic in me says it probably won't help, but if nothing else, I'm sure writing it was therapeutic. And then, there's always a chance that they might just listen.

Thos.

[G3]

Maybe. I hope they don't think I'm bluffing.

[robertwgross]

I guess I am one of the relatively lucky Sigma users.

I purchased the Sigma 170-500mm zoom lens (for Canon digital, of course) during January 2003. I think that counts as relatively new production, so it had no problem of compatibility with the new cameras.

Its autofocus failed completely within the first month, so it went back to Sigma and was instantly repaired and returned. After most of a year, its autofocus failed completely again, so it went back to Sigma and was instantly repaired and returned.

It still works fine on my cameras, but it will be interesting to see how long it keeps working over time.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

Bob, you call 2 repairs in a year "relatively lucky" ?

I'd be listing on Ebay at that point. Ouch.

[defordphoto]

G3: Send them the URL to this thread.

This is exactly (one of) the reason(s) I will not buy Sigma lenses. I considered the 12-24 when I was shopping for a WA. Read one too many posts about build quality and that was enough for me. Now after reading this, I will no longer consider Sigma until they start stepping up to the plate and realize that we're serious out here.

But, like you said in your letter to them, it will probably fall on deaf ears and you'll never hear from them again. Give them a bit of time for a response and then dump that turd on Ebay, get some first-quality Canon glass and never look back.

Not that all Sigma glass is bad, but this is way beyond what I'd risk my hard earned dollars on.

I wish you luck and keep us in the loop as to the results.

[robertwgross]

Two repairs in a year might be called unlucky.

Both repairs were done very quickly, so I call that lucky.

The lens was apparently new production, so it did not have any compatibility problem with the digital camera. If I had purchased the lens one year before, then I might have had to have the chip changed. If I had purchased the lens two years before, then it might not have been possible to have the chip changed.

Therefore, I still consider it *relatively lucky*.

Besides, the custom lens trailer for it is rolling pretty good now. The axles had to be rebuilt, but they are up to the extreme duty now.

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

G3:
It's interesting because I think there's a general perception that Sigma is the most viable alternative to Canon lenses. I think there are probably more Sigma zealots floating around this forum than there are for all other non-Canon brands combined. Logic suggests that this can only be interpreted as proof that they make enough good lenses that satisfy camera owners in sufficient numbers to command a reasonable market share. I also think that they've done a good job of providing lower cost alternatives to Canon's most popular lenses, and they’ve come up with enough innovation on their own to have a few things in their lineup that Canon has not yet provided.

It’s disappointing that they don’t appear to be totally committed to providing backward compatibility with Canon EOS systems. Canon somehow seems to have managed the trick of building new technologies into their cameras without making orphans out of the older EF lenses. One has to wonder why Sigma can’t do the same thing. The fact that a Sigma lens may someday be rendered incompatible with future variants of the EOS system is a serious negative to anyone considering making a major lens purchase that involves the Sigma brand.

There are Sigma lenses that really look interesting, on paper anyway. The 12-24 and some of their longer lenses are really sexy looking. Unfortunately, my own experience with Sigma lenses on my 10D so far is 0 for 2. I still have an open mind; one of the lenses was an older zoom, and the other was----the other was brand new, but maybe a bad one that slipped through their QA department. There are enough people in this forum whose opinions I regard very highly who swear by the Sigma lenses. Their endorsements are enough to convince me that a good Sigma lens is a good lens in general. I would still be concerned that at some point in the future, my Sigma lens may be a throw-away piece of antiquity that is no longer compatible with my Canon DSLR. That makes investing in Sigma lenses not really an investment at all.

Hang in there.

Thos.

[IndyJeff]

G3 if you do put all the Sigma lenses up for sale on eBay, send them a link to all of the sales. LOL I wonder if they will bid on them to drive the price up.

BTW, Good letter of complaint. If you do not get any response post here that you didn't, keep us up to date.




Jeff

[Scottes]

It’s disappointing that they don’t appear to be totally committed to providing backward compatibility with Canon EOS systems. Canon somehow seems to have managed the trick of building new technologies into their cameras without making orphans out of the older EF lenses. One has to wonder why Sigma can’t do the same thing.

Some might quickly blame Canon on this, since they don't supply the specs. But why do they have to provide them? They don't. So Sigma/Tokina/Tamron/etc all have to do reverse engineering to get their lenses to work.

But Sigma doesn't seem to do such a great job of reverse engineering. Has Canon changed the signals to command a lens to auto-focus? Seems unlikely, especially since Canon lenses many years old still autofocus. (Perhaps there's another reason I can't think of or don't know about.)

And I've never heard (though it's possible) of a Tokina or Tamron lens refusing to AF on a new Canon body. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

In any case, I've never heard of this in either brand, yet I continue to hear of it in Sigma, over and over again. I don't go looking for this info on any of these brands, I just run into Sigma issues repeatedly.

Then again, I run into far more happy Sigma owners than any form of Tamron or Tokina owners. Still, too many horror stories of Sigma, and I won't buy them. Canon or bust.

[robertwgross]

G3:
Sigma ...
It?s disappointing that they don?t appear to be totally committed to providing backward compatibility with Canon EOS systems. Canon somehow seems to have managed the trick of building new technologies into their cameras without making orphans out of the older EF lenses. One has to wonder why Sigma can?t do the same thing.


This is no mystery at all. Canon designs their own cameras and lenses. Canon has the specifications for the camera, the lens, and every possible detail where the two communicate. Canon may have added some details to the communications protocol that were not used in the film-only days.

Sigma makes a lens. They have to buy a Canon lens and a Canon camera and reverse-engineer it until they think they understand the communications between the lens and the camera. They then build that into their lens so that it seems to "talk" just like a Canon lens.

In the film-only days, that probably worked fine. Then a Canon EOS xxx came out, and it used that extra bit in the comm protocol that was never used in the film-only days. The Canon lens supported it, so it worked. The Sigma lens might not have had that extra bit deployed in the lens-to-camera comm, so it didn't work quite right. The Canon camera expected to see a bit, and the Sigma lens did not respond correctly, so the camera threw up the old Err 99.

If you were lucky, and if the Sigma lens was new enough, maybe it supports that extra bit anyway. If the Sigma lens was old, maybe the chip had to be replaced. If the Sigma lens was very old, maybe it simply could not be done by a chip replacement and Sigma doesn't feel like replacing the whole damned lens.

Maybe Sigma does not feel that it can afford to make new the old lens. I don't know. That is just a business decision on its part. Business is rough these days. I've worked for companies that had to "draw the line somewhere."

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the result of the letter will be that Sigma wil re-chip your lens for free.

Untill This thread I had never heard of them refusing anyone,. nor of any lens that could not have "the operation"

Bob's lens is this version, just newer, and it works,. so why can't the chip in his lens (or a chip like that one if Bob is unwilling to give up that particular chip :) )

...why can't one of these be put into your lens?

I really think it can.

I am thinking that Sigma was a little overwhelmed by the number of "free upgrades" they had to do,.. I mean who knew that the 10D would sell so many?

You spoke to an A-hole... and he told you bunch of B.S.

Just a theory,. and no it still doesn't say much for Sigma..

Anyway,.. i hope it all gets resolved. :)

Good luck.

[robertwgross]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

There are chips... and then there are chips.

Some chips are actually erasable memory chips. They can be erased and reprogrammed to do the new job. Other memory chips are not erasable. They have to be scrapped out and a new one inserted. In some cases, the old memory chip was of an old design that there is no longer a modern replacement. In that case, if they can't replace it, and they don't have the new parts, then they would have to literally scrap out the whole lens.

Very few manufacturers are going to do that after some years. Not even Canon.

---Bob Gross---

[Chris1le]

Some might quickly blame Canon on this, since they don't supply the specs. But why do they have to provide them? They don't. So Sigma/Tokina/Tamron/etc all have to do reverse engineering to get their lenses to work.

But Sigma doesn't seem to do such a great job of reverse engineering. Has Canon changed the signals to command a lens to auto-focus? Seems unlikely, especially since Canon lenses many years old still autofocus. (Perhaps there's another reason I can't think of or don't know about.)


Just thinking out loud. Maybe Canon made a decision long ago to build certain logic into their lenses that only they know. As the third party lens makers caught up Canon could simply change minor code that their older and current lenses would be ready for. While third party manufacturers would have to scramble to catch up on. Making the Canon lenses look that much more reliable. ??? Just out of curiosity does anybody know if Sigma and the other third party lens manufacturers have problems with other camera bodies :?:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.


---Bob Gross---

Actaully,. I was typing my reply while you posted yours,. I didn't see your explanantion beofore I hit reply... :?

[iwatkins]

If I understand it correctly, the lens in question cannot actually be rechipped. If it could, then Sigma would do it, for free. They don't even need to do that under the consumer laws.

If it can't be done, as in this case, then you are looking at buying a new lens. Now they have offered you a price (again, they don't have to under the consumer laws) and you can either accept it or make your own arrangements.

I think they are doing the best they can, they are after all not a charity.

Writing a letter might help, it might not. Good luck either way.

Cheers

Ian

[ron chappel]

Can you tell us how old the lens is.I'm abit surprised that such a modern lens can't be rechipped.Just curious

[G3]

It's about 3 1/2 or 4 years old. Canon had Digital SLRS out when I bought it (they were just way too expensive).

[G3]

If I understand it correctly, the lens in question cannot actually be rechipped. If it could, then Sigma would do it, for free. They don't even need to do that under the consumer laws.

If it can't be done, as in this case, then you are looking at buying a new lens. Now they have offered you a price (again, they don't have to under the consumer laws) and you can either accept it or make your own arrangements.

I think they are doing the best they can, they are after all not a charity.

Writing a letter might help, it might not. Good luck either way.

Cheers

Ian





Ian,
You are absolutely correct. They do not have to do anything. However, if they want to compete with Canon, then they need to provide the same level of customer commitment or better. They could just say "Tough, if you want a lens that will work, buy another one. The one we sold you worked on the Cameras you had then." And, they would technically be correct. But would it be right? I don't think so. I think they need to make the lenses that they build for EOS cameras just as compatible as Canon's lenses. So far, the only lens I have that has a problem with this camera is this Sigma.

If they want to compete with the big boys they need to step up to the plate. I'm not asking them to give out free lenses, but they don't need to make a profit in correcting THEIR problem with these lenses.

[ron chappel]

Mmmm,that is rather recent.
Sorry to hear about the problems.At least you can get a good price for it on ebay.I haven't bought any new modern sigmas yet,after this kind of story i'll have to think hard about ever doing so.

[msbc]

If they want to compete with the big boys they need to step up to the plate. I'm not asking them to give out free lenses, but they don't need to make a profit in correcting THEIR problem with these lenses.

Are you kidding?

You want Sigma to make your 4 year old lens work on a camera less than 2 years old at their expense!! Get some perspective and stop wineing. Your just after a free ride.

[iwatkins]

If they want to compete with the big boys they need to step up to the plate. I'm not asking them to give out free lenses, but they don't need to make a profit in correcting THEIR problem with these lenses.

I know what you mean and I feel for you I really do. I had to ditch a couple of Sigma lenses when I moved to the 10D. I just sold them to the shop where I bought my new lenses as trade in.

But as far as Sigma will be concerned there isn't actually a problem with the lens at all. It worked perfectly when you bought it and it still works perfectly now, except on a handful of digital SLRs. The lens will still work fine on lots of other EOS bodies. Their attitude will basically be that they don't have a problem. I can see their arguement.

But I can also see your argument as well and it is equally valid. If they want to get by in this world, maybe they should be more pro-active if helping owners of older lenses out. To some extent they do do this.

In fact they do a lot more than Canon did for FD mount users. I've still got a couple of thousand pounds worth of FD lenses sitting about which are effectively useless on modern cameras. OK, I'm not actually bothered because they still work fine on my older Canon bodies.

I would put the letter in anyway, just to see what comes back. Even so, I would be looking at outing the lens via Ebay or trade-in at a store for a newer lens.

None of what you have said or any other horror stories have put me off Sigma. They still make great value lenses and even if I have to take it on board that some of the lenses may not work in the future with newer bodies, it still will not stop me wanting to buy their products.

I can see the day when Canon changes the EOS EF mount. I can also see the day when everyone kicks up a stink and Canon does nothing about it. It has happened before (not just with Canon) and it will happen again.

Cheers

Ian

[G3]

If they want to compete with the big boys they need to step up to the plate. I'm not asking them to give out free lenses, but they don't need to make a profit in correcting THEIR problem with these lenses.

Are you kidding?

You want Sigma to make your 4 year old lens work on a camera less than 2 years old at their expense!! Get some perspective and stop wineing. Your just after a free ride.


That's your oinion and I respect it. My opinion is that if the Canon lenses for EOS work, then the Sigma lenses for EOS should too. As I said, they don't have to do anything. By the same token, I don't have to buy Sigma products any more. The reason I bought the 10D is so that I could use my battery of EOS lenses and shoot digital. This sort of defeats that purpose, doesn't it? If the lens is EOS compatible, then it should work on any EOS camera. And, by the way, I did NOT say that they should do it at their expense. Had you chosen to read the entire thread, you would have seen that I stated plainly that I was willing to pay a reasonable amount of money to get this fixed, plus shipping. The retail price of the lens is not a reasonable amount of money. I was even willing to pay some for the rechipping service. I don't think that asking them to fix it at cost is unreasonable. I know that $509.00 is way more than cost for Sigma for this lens. That is very likely the wholesale price to US distributors.

In business, if you want to compete with the big boys, you have to offer something that is value-add over the competition. Customer support is a good place to start. Canon is tough to compete with in that arena, but you have to at least equal them. Price is always an attractive competition point, if the product is not going to work across the platform for which it is sold, then price is not much of a factor anymore.

Hey, if they say that's the best they can do, then it's the best they can do. That's fine. I'll just go buy Canon products and they've lost one customer. But a whole lot more people will have seen this thread (and others like it) and will factor this in when they make a decision to buy a lens. I can't afford to go out and buy new lenses every time I buy a new body, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to do that. That's the whole reason for using SLR cameras and picking one system and sticking with it. You can carry your lenses forward as you buy new bodies. If I were switching to another platform, such as Nikon , then naturally I would expect to buy new lenses. I chose Canon EOS for my platform and I was simply trying to carry my lenses forward on a new body within that platform.

There are other situations, such as with the DRebel where lenses have been introduced specifically for that camera and are not cross-compatible with other EOS bodies. That is perfectly understandable and Canon made that announcement up front. Canon has made no such announcements to my knowledge about the comaptibility of other EOS lenses with the 10D. If they have, I haven't found it. To my knowledge, any previous EOS lens should function error-free on the 10D. I know that all of mine do. If Sigma wants to compete in this arena, they need to make their lenses as compatible as Canon's. They have, in essence, admitted this by offering the free rechipping service, and I commend them for that. It would not be unreasonable for them to charge a fee commensurate with what it cost them to perform the service. But I think they need to carry it a step further since some of the lenses, for whatever reason, can't be rechipped.

[G3]

If they want to compete with the big boys they need to step up to the plate. I'm not asking them to give out free lenses, but they don't need to make a profit in correcting THEIR problem with these lenses.

I know what you mean and I feel for you I really do. I had to ditch a couple of Sigma lenses when I moved to the 10D. I just sold them to the shop where I bought my new lenses as trade in.

But as far as Sigma will be concerned there isn't actually a problem with the lens at all. It worked perfectly when you bought it and it still works perfectly now, except on a handful of digital SLRs. The lens will still work fine on lots of other EOS bodies. Their attitude will basically be that they don't have a problem. I can see their arguement.

But I can also see your argument as well and it is equally valid. If they want to get by in this world, maybe they should be more pro-active if helping owners of older lenses out. To some extent they do do this.

In fact they do a lot more than Canon did for FD mount users. I've still got a couple of thousand pounds worth of FD lenses sitting about which are effectively useless on modern cameras. OK, I'm not actually bothered because they still work fine on my older Canon bodies.

I would put the letter in anyway, just to see what comes back. Even so, I would be looking at outing the lens via Ebay or trade-in at a store for a newer lens.

None of what you have said or any other horror stories have put me off Sigma. They still make great value lenses and even if I have to take it on board that some of the lenses may not work in the future with newer bodies, it still will not stop me wanting to buy their products.

I can see the day when Canon changes the EOS EF mount. I can also see the day when everyone kicks up a stink and Canon does nothing about it. It has happened before (not just with Canon) and it will happen again.

Cheers

Ian


Yep, you are absolutely correct. But, FD to EOS EF is a platform change. Every manufacturer makes platform changes and it's impossible to make the lenses from the previous platform work on the new one. That's understandable. This is not a platform change. This is an EOS-compatible lens that will not function with an EOS body.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not that this is entirely pertinant,

But this is what I understand to be the compatibility issue between Sigma lenses and the introduction of the Elan7 SLR (whose electronics are repeated in the 10D and 300D)

It all has to do with the Aperture diaphram and the power it takes to close it.

The conflict between the lenses and the Elan type bodies is purely electrical. In short,. (as I understand it) the Elan7 sends a smaller amount of current to the lens than previous models to power the aperture diaphram. Since the lens does not get enough power to close down the diaphram, the lens sends a signal back to the body saying "wide open" when the camera is saying "stop down you rat bastard" :) But the rat bastard simply can't as the Camera can not send the lens enough juice.

When Sigma engineered there EOS compatible lenses prior to the intro of the Elan7.. they based there power requirements on Canon's existing bodies and lenses.

Now here I am totally unclear on the details or numbers,. whether it is a voltage or apmerage number at issue etc..

So I am going to use totally fictitious numbers to explian the the idea of hw it breaks down.

Prior to the Elan7, Canon bodies used 6 volts (my example number,. not the real number) to power the aperture diaphram to close it down when the shutter is released (remember in AF cameras of this sort the aperture is allway wide open untill you actually shoot,. at which time power form the camera is used to stop down to the required aperture only as long as it is needed,. after which point the aperture springs back open wide)

So,. Sigma designed lenses that were compatible with EOS and they required the roughly the same voltage that the Canon bodies were providing to stop down there apertures at shutter release.

The trouboe arose when the Elan7 was released,. and it turns out that not only did the Elan7 provide only 3 volts (or some number LESS than the previous amount) to power the diaphram,. but it turns out that Canon lenses had all the time been capable of running off of less juice to the diaphram.

Sigma had never known that the Canon lenses would run at such a wide spec deviation... and Sigma's lenses could not. There was no way to plan for it,. all they had to work with was the previous bodies. They could not know that Canon would be able to alter the power supply there bodies were providing to the lenses and the lenses would be able to keep up.

Anyways.. not particularly pertinant to your plight,. but I hope it explains a little.

[G3]

Yeah, I understand why the lens won't work. And I understand that Sigma did not know that. Also not really pertinient to this, I suppose, is that Sigma could have found out easily the voltage range in which the Canon aperture servos would work during the reverse-engineering process. All they had to do is test the Canon lenses at varying servo voltages until they found the upper and lower limits at which those aperture mechanisms would function properly, then use aperture servos rated for the same threshold. Some other camera brands actually have the motor in the camera body and so those platforms would be immune to this sort of problem. My take on that is that Sigma did not do all of the due dilligence in the process of reverse-engineering.

The fact is that now it is what it is. What we have is some Canon EOS EF-comaptible lenses that won't work across the EOS EF platfrorm. They are supposed to, but they don't. Sigma has stepped up to the plate partway, and that is good. They are satisfying a portion of their customers, but not all. For some they are just saying, "Tough luck, we won't help you."

[robertwgross]

Since the lens does not get enough power to close down the diaphram, the lens sends a signal back to the body saying "wide open" when the camera is saying "stop down you rat bastard"


Boy, I'd love to see that rat bastard message in the Canon lens protocol.

---Bob Gross---

[G3]

Since the lens does not get enough power to close down the diaphram, the lens sends a signal back to the body saying "wide open" when the camera is saying "stop down you rat bastard"


Boy, I'd love to see that rat bastard message in the Canon lens protocol.

---Bob Gross---

That was rather funny. :D I haven't seen that message, exactly. However, I have uttered those words at that lens a few times.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Since the lens does not get enough power to close down the diaphram, the lens sends a signal back to the body saying "wide open" when the camera is saying "stop down you rat bastard"


Boy, I'd love to see that rat bastard message in the Canon lens protocol.

---Bob Gross---

That was rather funny. :D I haven't seen that message, exactly. However, I have uttered those words at that lens a few times.

You need to check under error codes..

error 2 = CF card communication error

error 99 = Unknown error but often occurs when the rat bastard lens refuses to stop down...

:)

[G3]

Oh...OK...then I have seen the "rat-bastard error". It was just in code and showed up as "error 99".

[Canuck]

Oh...OK...then I have seen the "rat-bastard error". It was just in code and showed up as "error 99".

I have seen it all too often and that was what my first post on this forum was all about, Canon 10D Err 99 and Non Canon lenses! The lenses I had were from before Dec, 99 and were in need of a rechip. I sold the 70-300 and the 28-80 is still here. last action it saw was taking the pic of the back of the Canon 16-35 F2.8L lens. I coulda done it with the other Sigma lens I have but that would be over kill to the extreme! I must also say that those 2 lenses were well below average! I need to do a side by side comparison with the Sigma 28-80 and Canon 16-35 F2.8L lenses. I know that the Canon will totally obliterate the Sigma, but there again the price difference is way there...like $1300!

Point 2 is that the other Sigma lens I am referring to is a Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens that is about $1800 and I got it new, end Aug, 2003. It is a lunker and weighs im at 5.75 lbs! I have had not a single issue with it in any way thus far. I have done a lot with it, including astrophotograhy, airplane pics, landscape pics, and probably some stuff that eludes me. I am truly looking forward to seeing how it does doing some birding in spring. I have a couple of places I can go check out in this area. I am hoping you have better luck w/ newer Sigma stuff in the future, if they should step up to the plate as was put. I think they are, somewhat. I think the 500mm F5.6 and one I have are proof of it along with a few others.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's about 3 1/2 or 4 years old. Canon had Digital SLRS out when I bought it (they were just way too expensive).
I think there is a miscommunication somewhere. I have that lens, and it is certainly older than yours, I bought it in 1996 (the serial # is 1004047). I sent it and a nearly as old 14MM to Sigma about 3-4 months ago and they 're-chipped' them both for free and they both work perfectly. It might be worth the effort to call them back & ask to speak to someone competent.

[G3]

Rusty,
Thank you very much for that information. I will go back to them and find out what gives.

[photography By Evangelos]

I wonder is Sigma Legally responsible to provide a working lens? If they have sold a EOS mount lens then it should work on a EOS Body any EOS body Digital or Film. When the tout that their lenses are completely compatible and a great value with the canon EOS system and they are not? This is a false representation of what they are selling the customer. If you buy canon lens any canon lens they all work on EOS Film and Digital body’s. So why is sigma not held to the same standard? They should be and they should give you a working lens this is what the standard is for any canon EOS mount lenses that they the will work with EOS system. When they fail to work then they have sold a product that is not completely compatible and are legally liable for false advertising their products as such. There are no selective terms when they say "That lens will not work and can not be re-chipped" then the lenses should have a warning on the box like a pack of smokes do warning you of the health hazards. In this case sigma should also have a warning on the box saying they the lenses are only good for EOS body’s that are currently in production form the date of purchased and can not guarantee on future EOS body’s Film or digital.This would keep people away from buying there lenses trust me.

Best of luck I have 2 Sigma’s and they are New ones they currently work well. But 99% are canon EF and L lenses.

Angelo

[MarkH]

Are you kidding?

You want Sigma to make your 4 year old lens work on a camera less than 2 years old at their expense!! Get some perspective and stop wineing. Your just after a free ride.

Are YOU kidding?

Sigma could put themselves out to keep a customer or they could just say "Tough".

But I have a 10D and will be buying a couple of lenses in the near future, I will also buy a new D-SLR in 2008 to replace my 10D. I could buy Sigma lenses for less money than Canon ones, but I'll probably save longer and buy Canon so that when I buy my next camera body I wont have to sell the lenses to buy new ones.

I currently have a Canon 50mm f1.8 which is excellent and a Canon 28-135 IS which I like, but I do want to buy a wider zoom. I also have a Canon 75-300 USM lens which is a bit cheap and I'd like to replace it with a 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter or a 100-400 IS.

Both lenses I need to get have more than one Sigma solution, but would that be an investment or would I have to replace them in 4 years?
:?

[MarkH]

I should also add that I need to buy a flash at some point, the built in flash is pretty basic.

What I am considering:
Canon 420EX
Canon 550EX
Sigma EF-500 Super

The Sigma seems to offer the most for the money, but threads like this one make me hesitate to rush out and buy it.

Does anyone know if there is any chance that the Sigma flash would not work on a future body that the Canon 550EX would work on? i.e. could the flash be afflicted by similar problems to the lenses?

:?

[Belmondo]

If anything can be gleaned from the above discussion, it's that there's no way to be sure, and Canon isn't telling. I'd be less concerned about it with a flash, however, bacause they don't represent quite the long-term investment of a top quality lens.

Also, as new metering systems come along and are incorporated into Canon's camera bodies, there's really no assurance that the current EX series of flashes will support future Canon SLRs. I, like many of us, still have a once-valuable EZ series flash that serves primarily as a paper weight now.

[MarkH]

If anything can be gleaned from the above discussion, it's that there's no way to be sure, and Canon isn't telling. I'd be less concerned about it with a flash, however, bacause they don't represent quite the long-term investment of a top quality lens.

Also, as new metering systems come along and are incorporated into Canon's camera bodies, there's really no assurance that the current EX series of flashes will support future Canon SLRs. I, like many of us, still have a once-valuable EZ series flash that serves primarily as a paper weight now.

On the other hand I am less reluctant to go to the 550EX because it really is not that expensive, not when you compare it to L lenses.

With lenses I could save enough by buying a Sigma EX lens instead of a Canon L lens to buy a Canon 550EX. If I buy the Sigma EX-500 DG Super instead of the Canon 550EX, I couldn't buy a reasonable lens with the savings (I already have the 50mm f1.8 lens)

The Canon 550EX is only around $300, is it really worth buying the Sigma for around $190 just to save $110?

I would hope that if I buy the 550EX that it will work with the camera I buy in 2008 to replace my 10D which will then be 5 years old, of course there are no guarantees of this. For that matter there are no guarentees that the lens mount wont have changed.

At the moment I am leaning towards the Canon product being the safer bet.

[Belmondo]

Aren't we saying more or less the same thing?

[G3]

If anything can be gleaned from the above discussion, it's that there's no way to be sure, and Canon isn't telling. I'd be less concerned about it with a flash, however, bacause they don't represent quite the long-term investment of a top quality lens.

Also, as new metering systems come along and are incorporated into Canon's camera bodies, there's really no assurance that the current EX series of flashes will support future Canon SLRs. I, like many of us, still have a once-valuable EZ series flash that serves primarily as a paper weight now.

On the other hand I am less reluctant to go to the 550EX because it really is not that expensive, not when you compare it to L lenses.

With lenses I could save enough by buying a Sigma EX lens instead of a Canon L lens to buy a Canon 550EX. If I buy the Sigma EX-500 DG Super instead of the Canon 550EX, I couldn't buy a reasonable lens with the savings (I already have the 50mm f1.8 lens)

The Canon 550EX is only around $300, is it really worth buying the Sigma for around $190 just to save $110?

I would hope that if I buy the 550EX that it will work with the camera I buy in 2008 to replace my 10D which will then be 5 years old, of course there are no guarantees of this. For that matter there are no guarentees that the lens mount wont have changed.

At the moment I am leaning towards the Canon product being the safer bet.

Yeah, my learned advice to you would be to consider it very carefully before you buy. We know some things now about the Sigma lenses that we didn't know 3 or 4 years ago. I'm not saying don't buy the Sigma lens, that's your decision. Just make sure you weigh the risks. I can't see myself ever buying another one at this point. I may be in a position that I have to keep the 17-35 Sigma that I have (it works on the 10D), at least for a time. I will very likely be adding a 100-400 L to my lenses this week, and I can't really afford to buy that and a 17-40 L at the same time.

[Tom W]

From looking at used lenses at KEH.com , I've noted that there is a definate line of demarkation where some Sigma lenses will not work with the Elan 7 and digital. I'm thinking that Sigma had to make such a significant change to their lenses after the Elan 7 was introduced that it requires more than a re-chipping. If your lenses are of the variety that was manufactured before Sigma made this change, then they may require extensive modification to work with the newer focus/aperture scheme.

Perhaps the motors that Sigma used to use were less expensive to manufacture, but required more energy to operate than was available on the Elan 7. Changing out a focus and/or aperture motor may require complete disassembly and reassembly/realignment of the lens.

I'm partly speculating here based on the little evidence that I see.

[MarkH]

Aren't we saying more or less the same thing?

I took your post to be leaning towards the Sigma flash, due to it not being a big investment and no guarantee that there will be compatability for either flash with a new body in a few years.

I have read up a little on the Sigma flash and the build quality seems to be not quite as good.

I think I'll get the 550EX and hope that it will do all I need for the rest of the decade, buying another flash would take money from my other purchases like the next body and some L lenses.

Since I don't use wide much I am considering buying a Sigma 18-50 DC, mainly because it is cheap enough to give away with the 10D when I buy the next body. Has anyone seen any reviews? Would this lens give reasonable pics?

I am happy to sell it and buy a Canon 17-40L later on if I find myself using the wide lens enough to justify it.

I can't afford the collection of L lenses that I really want and I need to save my money for the 70-200 f2.8L IS that I want to buy next year. I can't see myself spending on the dearer Sigma lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 EX or the 80-400 OS, I am sure they are nice lenses that give good results, but they cost too much for lenses that may not work on my new 24MPix full frame digital (or whatever) that I buy in 2008 to replace my aging 10D.


Of course if I win lotto I'll buy:
Canon 16-35 f2.8L
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS
Canon 100-400 L IS
Canon 1D MkII
and some primes.

Without a sudden windfall I will continue to be cautious and selective with my purchases.

[grewal]

Thanks
I almost bought a Sigma SD9 camera.
I will keep away from Sigma.
They seem to be taking their customers hostage.

[Canuck]

The SD9 is the best 3/4MP as far as colours are concerned, but it compete against the 10D, no way. This is a comparison of the perverbial apples and oranges. Let's look at it this way, if it is the 10MP it claims, it should, and I emphasise should blow the 10D out of the water. This is not the case. Look at the reviews.

[CoolToolGuy]

Thanks
I almost bought a Sigma SD9 camera.
I will keep away from Sigma.
They seem to be taking their customers hostage.

Ironically, I'm going to take up for Sigma on this one. :shock:

While I personally would prefer to see you get a Canon and join our 'club', the issues discussed here are about how Sigma reverse engineered the EOS protocol. In the case of the SD9, the whole shebang is in their hands. I hope they do not have to reverse engineer their lenses to their own body... :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[kraterz]

No need for so much speculation. If you want, Canon licenses its protocols to you. Kodak did just that to come up with their EOS compatible DSLR and there's no reported incompatibility with any Canon lens. If Sigma bothered to pay Canon, they would surely license their protocols. It can be done. Sigma just wants to cut corners and pay less, and the end result is that the customers are screwed after a few years when a new EOS body is released.

[G3]

I received an Email from Sigma stating that the person that told me that my lens could not be rechipped was mistaken and that it could, in fact be upgraded at no charge. I sent the lens to them today.