Is sigma Legally Responsible to provide a working lens?

[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 they 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 purchase 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
:)

[defordphoto]

New lenses: Absolutely. Old lenses: No.

[PacAce]

That would be nice if Sigma could be held accountable for every lens that they make but I'm sure there has to be a statute of limitation for any product that's produced. I'm not sure how years that would be, though. Just guessing...maybe 7?

[CoolToolGuy]

This is an interesting point - i.e. certification of compatibility with the EOS system. It is in Canon's interest to protect their intellectual property (EOS protocol), so they can rightfully charge a fee or royalties for those that are certified as compatible (if such a program were to exist). But that would increase costs to any lens manufacturer that wants to be in the club. There have been threads on this forum that have discussed aspects of this, and it has been suggested that Canon is not willing to share the 'secrets'. I don't know if that is true, but those are some of the things that would need to be worked out. :?

In the meantime, it would be helpful for those that are interested in non-Canon lenses to 'talk' to those manufacturers (email - what a concept!) and try to learn their level of commitment to the compatibility issue. Be warned, however, they all have lawyers that will probably review, prepare, or otherwise color (colour? ) their response to be non-committal, so don't expect a rock-solid approval of full and total compatibility. :roll:

Digital makes this more of an issue for the lens manufacturers. In the film days you could keep and use the same camera for years and years. Features came and went, and some of them meant more than others, but film was the media, and as the film changed, you could still use the same camera body. With digital, however, it has become a given that you have to buy new bodies to improve the media capabilities. So it is in the lens manufacturers interest to comply with the protocol, else they experience a round of dissatified customers with each new generation of camera bodies (which, my friends, is not lost on Canon). :shock:

For me, lens quality includes compatiblity. I steered away from non-Canon lenses in the FD days, because the image quality was inferior. Now, their glass is better but their electronics are inferior. So the challenge continues. :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[photography By Evangelos]

I think Sigma is liable as they advertise EOS mount for sale with no warning at all on compatibility. If there were a warning you would see a lot less sigma lenses. The warning would also diminish the value of buying sigma.


Angelo :)

[Tom W]

They are liable for fitting any present or past EOS body that Canon produces (if they claim compatibility), but Sigma cannot be expected to be able to make a lens that can adapt to any changes that Canon might make on future camera bodies. And Canon isn't likely to be concerned with Sigma or Tamron's lenses when they make evolutionary changes and/or improvements to their camera bodies.

[pradeep1]

Sigma can sell current and backward compatible lenses, but I doubt you can hold them responsible for Canon changing something on the EOS mount/software that makes Sigma lens work improperly. They cannot guarantee forward compatibility, just like any software vendor cannot promise you that their software will run perfectly on a future version of Windows.

[G3]

That would be nice if Sigma could be held accountable for every lens that they make but I'm sure there has to be a statute of limitation for any product that's produced. I'm not sure how years that would be, though. Just guessing...maybe 7?

A manufacturer is required to provide support for a product, in most cases, for 10 years from manufacture. That does not mean that they have to provide free support after the warranty period.

[CoolToolGuy]

If this were a two-way street, both parties would have to give a little. Canon would have to give up the design specs (after all, all of their lenses work across the entire spectrum of EOS bodies), and the other manufacturers would have to give up some dollars (probably yen, actually) to get the knowledge that would enable their lenses to comply. So, perhaps some of those emails should go to Canon telling them that, for example, if they are not going to offer a realistically priced wide angle lens in the 15mm range (for the digital folks), then hand the ball to the other guys and let them pitch (sorry for the baseball reference, but it is spring training time here in the USA). :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[G3]

Sigma can sell current and backward compatible lenses, but I doubt you can hold them responsible for Canon changing something on the EOS mount/software that makes Sigma lens work improperly. They cannot guarantee forward compatibility, just like any software vendor cannot promise you that their software will run perfectly on a future version of Windows.

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure it fully applies here. If a software vendor simply states that their software is "Windows compatible" with no qualifiers such as "Windows 2000 compatible" or "Windows XP compatible", that leads one to believe that the software should run on any Windows platform.

In this case, Sigma only says Canon EOS EF. As pointed out earlier all of Canons EF lenses will work across the EOS platform. If Canon said "Early EOS EF lenses will not function on the 10D, then I would not expect Sigma to make theirs function on it either. That is not the case. It is obviously not any sort of logic that has changed, or the Canon lenses would probably need rechipping too. The most plausible thing I've heard is that it is the drive voltages for the diaphram servos. I've heard this from multiple sources and it makes sense. That tells me that Sigma left out a critical piece of the reverse engineering when they set about designing their lenses. It would make sense to know the operating ranges of the components you are trying to replicate.

There is also the fact that earlier production lenses of the type I happen to have as well as later production ones have been rechipped to make them function, so why can't they rechip mine? It seems to me that maybe they have decided that rechipping was costing them too much money so they decided to stop it and just offer a "deal" on a new version (and charge enough to recoup some of the money spent of rechipping others)? I don't know. It just seems odd to me that they can rechip earlier and later lenses but not mine.

[Tom W]

If this were a two-way street, both parties would have to give a little. Canon would have to give up the design specs (after all, all of their lenses work across the entire spectrum of EOS bodies), and the other manufacturers would have to give up some dollars (probably yen, actually) to get the knowledge that would enable their lenses to comply. So, perhaps some of those emails should go to Canon telling them that, for example, if they are not going to offer a realistically priced wide angle lens in the 15mm range (for the digital folks), then hand the ball to the other guys and let them pitch (sorry for the baseball reference, but it is spring training time here in the USA). :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

But its not a 2-way street. Canon and Sigma are competitors. Any dollars you spend on Sigma lenses are dollars that you don't spend on Canon lenses. Why would Canon sacrifice its ability to profit from its own technological acheivements by giving its R&D knowledge to a competitor? If they give it to Sigma, they may as well give it to Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta as well.

If Canon sees a sizeable market for a 15 mm lens at a cheaper price point, they will produce a product that fills that gap. But they certainly aren't going to do so for a loss. Nor are they apt to give their knowledge away to someone that will steal their customers.

[CoolToolGuy]

If this were a two-way street, both parties would have to give a little. Canon would have to give up the design specs (after all, all of their lenses work across the entire spectrum of EOS bodies), and the other manufacturers would have to give up some dollars (probably yen, actually) to get the knowledge that would enable their lenses to comply. So, perhaps some of those emails should go to Canon telling them that, for example, if they are not going to offer a realistically priced wide angle lens in the 15mm range (for the digital folks), then hand the ball to the other guys and let them pitch (sorry for the baseball reference, but it is spring training time here in the USA). :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

But its not a 2-way street. Canon and Sigma are competitors. Any dollars you spend on Sigma lenses are dollars that you don't spend on Canon lenses. Why would Canon sacrifice its ability to profit from its own technological acheivements by giving its R&D knowledge to a competitor? If they give it to Sigma, they may as well give it to Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta as well.

If Canon sees a sizeable market for a 15 mm lens at a cheaper price point, they will produce a product that fills that gap. But they certainly aren't going to do so for a loss. Nor are they apt to give their knowledge away to someone that will steal their customers.

That's why I said what I said. Sigma would have to pay for the right to get the info. Our buddies at Microsoft try this all the time and they continue to be hit with lawsuits about it. Truth be told, they're still getting away with a lot more than they should, but back to Canon. They can't just keep it all to themselves, especially as their market share grows. Competition is good for this market. Canon has the lead on EOS, and they probably always will. If they can get away with keeping the EOS protocol away from the competition, they probably will. But if they can't serve the market themselves, they should share the wealth. It is also in their best interest to allow for other vendors, as that helps secure a leadership position - lots of manufacturers make lenses for the leaders, and the leaders court this as another way to maintain a leadership position. Canon does not want to be the highest quality - else, they would only sell 'L' glass and 1Ds's. They want market share, and that means quantity. They need to share the wealth. :wink:

I could start another rant (do I look like Dennis Miller here? ) about Sony, who have shot themselves in the foot more than once by trying to be parochial - Beta VCRs, 8mm VCRs, memory stick - there's a long list of good things that they introduced, but failed because they wanted the whole pie. (backs down off of soap box) :oops: :roll: :) :D

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Tom W]

That's why I said what I said. Sigma would have to pay for the right to get the info. Our buddies at Microsoft try this all the time and they continue to be hit with lawsuits about it. Truth be told, they're still getting away with a lot more than they should, but back to Canon. They can't just keep it all to themselves, especially as their market share grows. Competition is good for this market. Canon has the lead on EOS, and they probably always will. If they can get away with keeping the EOS protocol away from the competition, they probably will. But if they can't serve the market themselves, they should share the wealth. It is also in their best interest to allow for other vendors, as that helps secure a leadership position - lots of manufacturers make lenses for the leaders, and the leaders court this as another way to maintain a leadership position. Canon does not want to be the highest quality - else, they would only sell 'L' glass and 1Ds's. They want market share, and that means quantity. They need to share the wealth. :wink:



Sounds a little like socialism/communism to me. Why would Canon or any other company or individual spend time and/or money on research and development if the fruits of their labor were to be given to their competitors?

Canon owes Sigma nothing. They owe you and I nothing except to support what we've bought for the agreed-to warranty period.

If Sigma wants a perfect lens/body system, then they are free to produce their own camera bodies. Oh wait, they already do. But they aren't highly regarded.

As for the Microsoft comparison, I don't agree with the antitrust BS going on there either. Nobody is being forced to buy Microsoft (heck, how many people even NEED a computer???). There's Apple, UNIX, LINUX, and such out there. Just because a group of overzealous lawyers bleats their anti-business diatrab doesn't make it anything close to reality.


I could start another rant (do I look like Dennis Miller here? ) about Sony, who have shot themselves in the foot more than once by trying to be parochial - Beta VCRs, 8mm VCRs, memory stick - there's a long list of good things that they introduced, but failed because they wanted the whole pie. (backs down off of soap box) :oops: :roll: :) :D

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Sony is a good lesson, but it is a lesson that doesn't require a forced solution. They made their bed and slept in it WRT the Betamax. Canon learned a lesson when they went from F-mount to EF mount lenses. Both paid a price. But in neither case was the remedy of forced sharing of know-how required to resolve the problem.

The marketplace sorted these problems out all by itself, and without a gang of greedy lawyers and government-types mucking up the works.

[G3]

I don't agree that Canon should be forced to provide the details of their design and protocol with anyone, including Sigma. I think a good business case could be made for doing it under certain circumstances, but that's their decision. They've spent the time an resources on R&D for it and it belongs to them.

I do, however think that Sigma should have to make their EOS EF compatible lenses EOS EF comaptible across the board. There was no disclaimer whatever at purchase time that said "This lens may not work on all EOS EF cameras." They are under no obligation to do so legally, I don't think. Warranty period is over, so they are not legally obligated to do anything (other than treat all customers the same). I do think it is in their best interest to try to keep all of their customers happy.

If Sigma does not offer me a reasonable solution for the problem I have with the lens that I own, I do not have any legal recourse. I probably would not pursue one if I did have one. I am not one for filing lawsuits over everything that happens. I will simply chalk it up as a bad business decision on my part and switch over entirely to Canon lenses and never buy another Sigma product again. I will also relate my experience to anyone I run into who is considering a Sigma lens. Then they can make their own decision as to whether to buy one or not. I'm sure a number of those people will relate that story to people they run into and so on...it just doesn't pay to have unhappy customers.

If they do offer me a reasonable solution, then I will continue to use Sigma products where they fit my needs and I will tell other people that Sigma stepped up to the plate and made things right. I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for the fix. As I said, warranty period is over and I wouldn't expect to get it fixed or replaced free. I don't think I should be left with a lens I can't use that is supposed to be compatible with the platform I'm using.

I'm only one customer, though. I'm not sure that the 3 or 4 additional lenses I might buy in my lifetime from them is enough for them to be concerned about. But, if they have this sort of problem with 100 customers, then that's potential lost sales of several hundred lenses. If they have these problems with 1,000 customers then that's several thousand lost sales. When you factor in the number of people that those 1,000 unhappy customers will talk to then there is a potential for quite significant lost revenue.

[RichardtheSane]

IIRC Sigma reverse engineer the canon products so that they can get a working design to get their lenses to fit.

Also I am sure I read somewhere that canon ensures backwards compatibility with older lenses by incorporating data on all EF lenses ever produces into the software for the new cameras. That way when an old EF lens is put on the new body the camera will still have all it's parameters available.
I admit that I don't know exactly how the tech works, and I am prepared to be told that this is totally wrong.

Also worth noting that if you are the original owner of a sigma lens and have the original reciept (and the lens can be upgraded) sigma will do the upgrade free of charge (in the UK & US), but you have to pay postage costs.

[Tom W]

I don't agree that Canon should be forced to provide the details of their design and protocol with anyone, including Sigma. I think a good business case could be made for doing it under certain circumstances, but that's their decision. They've spent the time an resources on R&D for it and it belongs to them.

I do, however think that Sigma should have to make their EOS EF compatible lenses EOS EF comaptible across the board. There was no disclaimer whatever at purchase time that said "This lens may not work on all EOS EF cameras." They are under no obligation to do so legally, I don't think. Warranty period is over, so they are not legally obligated to do anything (other than treat all customers the same). I do think it is in their best interest to try to keep all of their customers happy.

It is probably good business practice for Sigma to take a little loss on re-chipping if the end result is more future customers. That is a business decision for Sigma to make, however.

If Sigma does not offer me a reasonable solution for the problem I have with the lens that I own, I do not have any legal recourse. I probably would not pursue one if I did have one. I am not one for filing lawsuits over everything that happens. I will simply chalk it up as a bad business decision on my part and switch over entirely to Canon lenses and never buy another Sigma product again. I will also relate my experience to anyone I run into who is considering a Sigma lens. Then they can make their own decision as to whether to buy one or not. I'm sure a number of those people will relate that story to people they run into and so on...it just doesn't pay to have unhappy customers.


If they do offer me a reasonable solution, then I will continue to use Sigma products where they fit my needs and I will tell other people that Sigma stepped up to the plate and made things right. I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for the fix. As I said, warranty period is over and I wouldn't expect to get it fixed or replaced free. I don't think I should be left with a lens I can't use that is supposed to be compatible with the platform I'm using.

And THAT is, in my opinion, the best solution. The free market allows us to "vote with our feet" by congregating to the supplier that gives us the best deal for our money. Word-of-mouth is one of the powerful tools that help assist us in those decisions.

I'm only one customer, though. I'm not sure that the 3 or 4 additional lenses I might buy in my lifetime from them is enough for them to be concerned about. But, if they have this sort of problem with 100 customers, then that's potential lost sales of several hundred lenses. If they have these problems with 1,000 customers then that's several thousand lost sales. When you factor in the number of people that those 1,000 unhappy customers will talk to then there is a potential for quite significant lost revenue.

Yes, you're only one, but you aren't alone by any stretch of the imagination. People in similar situations have a good chance of making the same decision. I would think that Sigma has considered these issues carefully, but maybe they haven't. If they have, no amount of correspondence with them is likely to change their corporate minds. But if they haven't really researched the long-term effects of their policy, then an influx of customer input on the issue might well have some effect.

The ball lands firmly back in Sigma's court.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Every time MS releases a new OS there is software that womn't run on it.


It would be nice if we could force the software companies to give us free updates or free upgrades to the newer version that does run on the latest Windows,. but it is hardly to be expected.

The Sigma lenses that you purchase today will function on any current EOS body.

The Sigma lenses that were made in 2000 would work on any EOS body made up to 2000.

Aobe PSCS will ONLY run on WinXP,. but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP (in fact I can not remeber an OS release that alienated more more software than WinXP and Win95)

So ,. I can toss dozens of apps to run PSCS on XP or I can toss PSCS to keep running the other dozen apps...

What did I do?

I wen twith XP and have shelled out to replace the dozens of apps as well as Upgraded to PSCS

Now who should I sue?

Microsoft? (the obvious choice,. which woul literally translate to sueing Canon for the associated problem with Sigma lenses)

Adobe? (for forcing the upgrade to XP)

The Other dozen Software companies? (for not giving me free upgrades to XP functional software?)

I find it odd that we allways blame MS for these horros,. but we never blame Canon.

Oh well just my two cents.

We take it upon ourselves to upgrade our OS or our Cameras.. I think it's fair that we should expect to possibly have to upgrade or apps and lenses.


Again,. look at Nikon,. three lines of incompatible lenses on sale right now.. We are just lucky and spoiled that Canon has maintained the same mount and functionality so long.

[PaulB]

Sigma do not to my knowledge licence the right to use the EOS mount.
This means that they have to reverse engineer the mount electronics to get their version of the EOS lens mount to work. As Canon upgrade/update their lenses they incorporate all the lens information in the new bodies and everything works fine. Canon however do not pass this information to Sigma and are under no obligation to do so and therefore Sigma lenses do not always work on new Canon bodies.
I believe that either Tamron or Tokina do in fact licence the EOS mount from Canon - when did you hear of compatibility problems with these manufacturers lenses?
The simple answer is for Sigma is to pay the licence fee to Canon - otherwise they are always playing catch-up - but obviously it is not financialy viable for them to do so (or they want things done on the cheap!).

[LiquidMantis]

but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP

Not to start a tangent, but did you try using the compatability modes that XP offers? Right-clicking on an EXE and choosing properties will let you set an OS emulation for applications.

...We now return you to your normally scheduled thread...

[evilenglishman]

Aobe PSCS will ONLY run on WinXP,. but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP (in fact I can not remeber an OS release that alienated more more software than WinXP and Win95)....


It runs on win2K with SP3 too :D

[defordphoto]

Aobe PSCS will ONLY run on WinXP,. but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP (in fact I can not remeber an OS release that alienated more more software than WinXP and Win95)....


It runs on win2K with SP3 too :D

I think I read somewhere that someone got it running on Linux too.

[sparktography]

Aobe PSCS will ONLY run on WinXP,. but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP (in fact I can not remeber an OS release that alienated more more software than WinXP and Win95)....


It runs on win2K with SP3 too :D

I think I read somewhere that someone got it running on Linux too.

Good god - dosent anyone here remember that PSCS is developed for the mac! It's ported to Windows as afterthought :)

[defordphoto]

Mac? What the heck's a Mac? Big Mac? ;)

[defordphoto]

Aobe PSCS will ONLY run on WinXP,. but I have tons of software that will NOT run on WinXP (in fact I can not remeber an OS release that alienated more more software than WinXP and Win95)....


It runs on win2K with SP3 too :D

I think I read somewhere that someone got it running on Linux too.

Good god - dosent anyone here remember that PSCS is developed for the mac! It's ported to Windows as afterthought :)

Well, with the multi-millions of PC's out there I very, very highly doubt it's "ported" as an afterthought.

Anyway, here's the history of Photoshop: http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html

[LiquidMantis]

Well, with the multi-millions of PC's out there I very, very highly doubt it's "ported" as an afterthought.

[Fade in. Four pale, stoop-shouldered guys at a bar table, several empty mugs]

Guy1: "Hey fellas, great job with this CS! CS on OS X will be our best version yet!"

[the group cheers]

Guy3, slurring slightly: "You know, maybe I have had too much porter, but I just got the wacky idea that maybe we should think about that other 95% of the market. Crazy, huh?"

[defordphoto]

:)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well I'm glad the propeler heads got it running on Linux :mrgreen:

lol,..

PSCS was designed to only work in XP... so that they could do there "activation thing"

And compatibility mode will not work for any of the apps that I am concerned about...

None of which has anythiung to do with the point I was making by comparing the software OS industry to the Sigma Canon issue.. I could have used old computer hardware as the example,. ("Why won't my Intel Slot1 PentiumIII work in my new Intel Motherboard?") or rifles :mrgreen: ( "Why did my Marlin 1894 lever action blow to peices when I switched from Winchester blackpowder cartridges to modern high pressure fast burning powder cartridges?? Back in 1894 Marlin said it was 100% compatible with Winchester cartridges???" :shock: ) :lol:


...or some such thing... the example would have illustrated the same issues.

[defordphoto]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

[G3]

Well I'm glad the propeler heads got it running on Linux :mrgreen:

lol,..

PSCS was designed to only work in XP... so that they could do there "activation thing"

And compatibility mode will not work for any of the apps that I am concerned about...

None of which has anythiung to do with the point I was making by comparing the software OS industry to the Sigma Canon issue.. I could have used old computer hardware as the example,. ("Why won't my Intel Slot1 PentiumIII work in my new Intel Motherboard?") or rifles :mrgreen: ( "Why did my Marlin 1894 lever action blow to peices when I switched from Winchester blackpowder cartridges to modern high pressure fast burning powder cartridges?? Back in 1894 Marlin said it was 100% compatible with Winchester cartridges???" :shock: ) :lol:


...or some such thing... the example would have illustrated the same issues.



:) I see your point, but I disagree with it in part. It is entertaining, though.

I agree that the software compatibility issue is maddening sometimes. And I do believe that there is some planned obsolescence there.

However, I disagree with both of your analogies. To my way of thinking, trying to run a P3 processor in a P4 motherboard would be the same as trying to use FD lenses on an EOS EF Camera. It's a different platform.

Same with the blackpowder/smokeless powder analogy. Blackpowder guns were a different platform. When smokeless powder was introduced, new guns were designed for it and everyone was warned not to use smokeless powder in blackpowder guns. Of course there were a few people who chose to ignore those warnings. They were the ones in those old pictures with patches over their eyes, fingers missing, etc. Those warnings are still to this day printed prominently on every can of smokeless powder you buy. Also, smokeless powders actually burn slower than black powder in open air. It has a progressive rate of ignition though, dependent on pressure. The more pressure, the faster it burns, the faster it burns the more pressure. That's how it develops the tremendous bullet speeds you get from smokeless powder. Smokeless powder definitely does develop more pressure than black powder for equivalent loads, measured in Copper Units of Pressure (CUP). With smokeless powder, varying burn rates are available. Large fast-moving calibers normally actually use a slow-burning powder...7mm Rem Mag, for instance uses a very slow burning powder such as AA3100 or H4350.

Thus far, I have not seen a warning printed on a Sigma lens box that says: "Danger, this lens may not function on every EOS camera" :)

[Tom W]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

It already is the next century. ;)

[CoolToolGuy]

Sigma do not to my knowledge licence the right to use the EOS mount.
This means that they have to reverse engineer the mount electronics to get their version of the EOS lens mount to work. As Canon upgrade/update their lenses they incorporate all the lens information in the new bodies and everything works fine. Canon however do not pass this information to Sigma and are under no obligation to do so and therefore Sigma lenses do not always work on new Canon bodies.
I believe that either Tamron or Tokina do in fact licence the EOS mount from Canon - when did you hear of compatibility problems with these manufacturers lenses?
The simple answer is for Sigma is to pay the licence fee to Canon - otherwise they are always playing catch-up - but obviously it is not financialy viable for them to do so (or they want things done on the cheap!).

There you go - if you rely on reverse engineering, you deserve what you get. I know nothing of the relationship between any of the lens manufacturers and Canon, but it sounds like Sigma is gambling that they can compete in the Canon market without paying the freight. Thanks, but I'll take my money somewhere else.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[SWPhotoImaging]

Personally, I have found Sigma to be very forthright in identifying lenses as "compatible with the 10D", or ableto be re-chipped, or non-compatible. On three different occasions, I have e-mailed Sigma customer support with information about lenses I was considering purchasing. On every occasion, I have had a response within 24 hours (not counting weekends). I have asked teh seller to provide me with the lens model andd serial number, then sent that information to Sigma,and they have let me know whether the lens was compatible. In the case where the serial number indicated re-chipping was necessary, they sent me all the info necessary to send the lens in for a no-cost upgrade. In the casse where the lens was not-upgradable, they stated that clearly.

All I had to do was ask. If one buys a lens without checking, I don't think they can blame the manufacturer for their foolishness.

[pradeep1]

Mac? What the heck's a Mac? Big Mac? ;)

This obviously confused individual must be talking about those Mack warranties for camera repair. It's Mack, not Mac! :P

[defordphoto]

Mac? What the heck's a Mac? Big Mac? ;)

This obviously confused individual must be talking about those Mack warranties for camera repair. It's Mack, not Mac! :P

AHA! Mack the Knife! That's where I'd heard that!!

[phili1]

Well you guys have me confused. I own and EOS Elan and have three Sigma lenses and all three are working just fine for the entire time I have owned them. Now I am almost ready to buy a 10D and you say the lenses might not work. It does not make any sense. The bayonet is the same, the only difference is the contacts which the camera tells the lens to focus and to stop down. Unless Canon has changed something in the Camera and they profess that all older lenses work, the Sigmas should work just fine to.

As far as Sigmas responsability, they have none on older lenses but if they state that it works for new one and it does not then they have to legally refund your money, thats false advertising. Hey Sigma like Tameron have been around for the 35 plus years I have been involved with photography, I cant beleive they would make something that wont work. As far as Canon giving them specs, well a design engineer can figure it out with no help, all they need is a Camera. After all a hacker can break into computer systems easy, then someone can get into a Camers data with the same ease.

If what you are saying is right then Sigmas out of business in a year, because if they doing it to Canon, then Nikon and Minolta are having the same problem.

[RichardtheSane]

The bayonet is the same, the only difference is the contacts which the camera tells the lens to focus and to stop down. Unless Canon has changed something in the Camera and they profess that all older lenses work, the Sigmas should work just fine to.


Canon have changed something in the camera.....

The electronics have been updated for newer lenses, but it has been made backward compatible with all previous lenses that canon manufacture and supply the license to use the mount to.

Since Sigma are tight and reverse engineer instead of buying the license then their lenses are not included in the new elecronics.

[G3]

Personally, I have found Sigma to be very forthright in identifying lenses as "compatible with the 10D", or ableto be re-chipped, or non-compatible. On three different occasions, I have e-mailed Sigma customer support with information about lenses I was considering purchasing. On every occasion, I have had a response within 24 hours (not counting weekends). I have asked teh seller to provide me with the lens model andd serial number, then sent that information to Sigma,and they have let me know whether the lens was compatible. In the case where the serial number indicated re-chipping was necessary, they sent me all the info necessary to send the lens in for a no-cost upgrade. In the casse where the lens was not-upgradable, they stated that clearly.

All I had to do was ask. If one buys a lens without checking, I don't think they can blame the manufacturer for their foolishness.


True, but that's not what happened.

[Belmondo]

Personally, I have found Sigma to be very forthright in identifying lenses as "compatible with the 10D", or ableto be re-chipped, or non-compatible. On three different occasions, I have e-mailed Sigma customer support with information about lenses I was considering purchasing. On every occasion, I have had a response within 24 hours (not counting weekends). I have asked teh seller to provide me with the lens model andd serial number, then sent that information to Sigma,and they have let me know whether the lens was compatible. In the case where the serial number indicated re-chipping was necessary, they sent me all the info necessary to send the lens in for a no-cost upgrade. In the casse where the lens was not-upgradable, they stated that clearly.

All I had to do was ask. If one buys a lens without checking, I don't think they can blame the manufacturer for their foolishness.

When it comes to assessing Sigma lenses as long term investments, however, is it really enough to know that a lens will work, or can be made to work, on a 10D today. It seems to beg the question, "What happens when I buy the next generation of Canon SLRs. Will I have to go through the same exercise again, and will I be able to use my present Sigma lens at all?" At least with Canon lenses, there is a reasonable presumption that we will.

[G3]

Well you guys have me confused. I own and EOS Elan and have three Sigma lenses and all three are working just fine for the entire time I have owned them. Now I am almost ready to buy a 10D and you say the lenses might not work. It does not make any sense. The bayonet is the same, the only difference is the contacts which the camera tells the lens to focus and to stop down. Unless Canon has changed something in the Camera and they profess that all older lenses work, the Sigmas should work just fine to.

As far as Sigmas responsability, they have none on older lenses but if they state that it works for new one and it does not then they have to legally refund your money, thats false advertising. Hey Sigma like Tameron have been around for the 35 plus years I have been involved with photography, I cant beleive they would make something that wont work. As far as Canon giving them specs, well a design engineer can figure it out with no help, all they need is a Camera. After all a hacker can break into computer systems easy, then someone can get into a Camers data with the same ease.

If what you are saying is right then Sigmas out of business in a year, because if they doing it to Canon, then Nikon and Minolta are having the same problem.

Actually, only the camera brands that have the servo motors for the diaphram and focusing in the lens will have the problem. Those that have the motors in the camera body wouldn't.

I do agree that this is likely to leave a sour taste in the mouths of many current Sigma customers and scare off many future ones. It has certainly changed my opinion.

By the way, I did a little experiment with mine yesterday. The current chatter on the web is that it is the diaphram servo that is causing the issue, because the Canon servos have a wider voltage operating range and Canon changed the voltages supplied to the servo with the introduction of Elan 7. What I found out is that if I set the aperture wide open so that the lens does not have to stop down, it still can't drive the focusing motor. If I leave the lens set wide open and manually focus, it will function without error. So that tells me that both servos are the problem. That makes sense, to have both motors operating on the same voltage and it makes sense that they would use similarly rated motors for both applications. I don't know exactly what purpose this little experiment served, but there it is...

Maybe that's why some lenses can be reworked and some can't. Maybe some of them used different servos for the focusing? What that tells me is that it's not that they can't be reworked it is that Sigma won't do it because it would cost them too much.

[G3]

Personally, I have found Sigma to be very forthright in identifying lenses as "compatible with the 10D", or ableto be re-chipped, or non-compatible. On three different occasions, I have e-mailed Sigma customer support with information about lenses I was considering purchasing. On every occasion, I have had a response within 24 hours (not counting weekends). I have asked teh seller to provide me with the lens model andd serial number, then sent that information to Sigma,and they have let me know whether the lens was compatible. In the case where the serial number indicated re-chipping was necessary, they sent me all the info necessary to send the lens in for a no-cost upgrade. In the casse where the lens was not-upgradable, they stated that clearly.

All I had to do was ask. If one buys a lens without checking, I don't think they can blame the manufacturer for their foolishness.

When it comes to assessing Sigma lenses as long term investments, however, is it really enough to know that a lens will work, or can be made to work, on a 10D today. It seems to beg the question, "What happens when I buy the next generation of Canon SLRs. Will I have to go through the same exercise again, and will I be able to use my present Sigma lens at all?" At least with Canon lenses, there is a reasonable presumption that we will.


That is exactly the point. Will the lens still function on the next generation of cameras that use the EOS EF mount. If the next generation of Canon cameras obsoletes the EF mount, then I would not expect the current lens to work. If it is still within the EOS EF family, then I definitely would, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Canon's lenses do, and if you are going to be Canon compatible, then you have to be Canon compatible, not just partially so.

I think the bottom line here is going to be that I made a bad decision in buying Sigma over Canon trying to save a little money. I guess the old saying "You get what you pay for" is true. And, thinking about it further, I spent $700.00 trying to save a thousand...it's just an expensive lesson. Maybe I can get two or three hundred for the lens and reduce the price of that lesson somewhat, but it's one I won't soon forget. Sigma seems to be completely ignoring my E-mails now, which doesn't really come as a surprise either. Somehow I just don't think Canon would have handled it this way, had there been a problem with compatibility with their lenses.

[drisley]

Does anyone know if this type of problem exits with Tamron lenses as well?

[RichardtheSane]

Does anyone know if this type of problem exits with Tamron lenses as well?
Not as far as I know.

[donb]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

It already is the next century. ;)

But hopefully, not the last "next century".

As to Sigma, "Caveat Emptor" or "You get what you pay for" seem to apply.

[defordphoto]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

It already is the next century. ;)

But hopefully, not the last "next century".

As to Sigma, "Caveat Emptor" or "You get what you pay for" seem to apply.

The next century begins 1/1/3001. ;)

[G3]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

It already is the next century. ;)

But hopefully, not the last "next century".

As to Sigma, "Caveat Emptor" or "You get what you pay for" seem to apply.

The next century begins 1/1/3001. ;)


Actually, I would think that 1/1/2100 would begin the next century....

[Tom W]

Yup. We could beat this incompatibility horse well into the next century...

It already is the next century. ;)

But hopefully, not the last "next century".

As to Sigma, "Caveat Emptor" or "You get what you pay for" seem to apply.

The next century begins 1/1/3001. ;)


Actually, I would think that 1/1/2100 would begin the next century....

Well, at any rate, I slept through the last one so this one seems new to me. I doubt if I'll see the next one.