Sigma Service

[John Sims]

As noted in a previous thread, I was less then impressed with the performance of my Sigma 17-35 f2.8 EX lens. However, with no other quality lens to compare it to, I assumed this was the best that could be expected.

Subsequent purchase of a Canon L Series lens demonstrated how poor this lens really was. I was rightly taken to task on this forum for moaning about the lens without returning it to Sigma, so I took the posters advice and packed it off to Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd.

It transpired that the lens was indeed faulty and an estimate for repair was returned.

I was a little disappointed that I should be expected to pay to repair a lens which I purchased new and had never dropped or abused in any way during pretty leisurely use over a period of 20 months at most. I made this point to Sigma and, despite some confusion over the registration of the lens, they offered to carry out the repairs under warranty. Top bunnies, big thumbs up for Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd.

I am now very excited about the possible performance of this lens.

It would seem that mine is sufficiently poor to require return to Japan for repair. Once it comes back it will then be tested again and, if necessary, will be calibrated for my body.

Obviously all will be revealed in somewhere up to eight weeks when I should get the lens back. However, I can't fault Sigma for their initial efforts in resolving the issue.

Thanks again to the poster who kicked me into gear and here's hoping I will soon be joining those enthusiastic about Sigma lenses.

[evandavies]

I'm sure it will be much better when it comes back.

Let us know how it goes...

[ErikM]

Told ya Sigma would fix it up for ya :) Next time, don't wait 20 months though ;) Keep us updated!

[GSH]

If it's as good as my 15-30, 70-200 or 120-300 you'll be a happy bunny ;)

[Mr. Clean]

You gotta love 'em! Well, you don't HAVE to, but they take care of their customers.

[kevin_c]

I had the 17-35 EX DG and must admit that I never liked it! - it was soft with low contrast and had a horrible yellowish colour cast.
I have the Sigma 70-200 EX DG f/2.8 and this is a completely different lens in terms of IQ - maybe we both had/have 'dogs'.

I hope you are happy when you get yours back.

[vkalia]

I flooded my underwater housing, giving my Sigma 10-20 a moderate soak (my 20D absorbed most of the water, as it turns out). The lens was working, but squeaking/groaning a bit. Then I dropped the camera/lens, breaking the AF/MF switch and possibly bending the mount a bit, b/c I had to have Canon remove the lens from the body.

I was in Thailand on some work, and Sigma's dealers in Thailand fixed my lens for a Bht 856. In 2 days. That's less than $25. Not bad, eh?

I am surprised - and impressed - that they took it in under warranty. Normally, 20 months of use is a long time, and who knows what might have caused the problems. My then-6-month-old 100-400 had an oil leak in an inner element and Canon Singapore charged me $150 to fix it, b/c I got it in after my warranty had expired. My 15 month old 300/4L IS had its front element fall out - had to pay $100 to have it fixed. In both cases, the fault was not mine, but I dont blame Canon for not fixing it for free.

I am impressed with Sigma.

Vandit

[Moppie]

Im glad they came through for you, see Sigma isn't really all that bad :)

[4x4rock]

Yup, Sigma is really good with their service. I had all my Sigma lenses adjusted and fixed without any of them under warranty nor I'm first owner.

[John Sims]

Since March '05 Sigma UK provide a 3 year warranty. There seemed to be a little confusion over my lens as, despite the warranty card not being returned, my lens was registered to someone else.

Any way, three years can't be bad and, assuming my lens comes back working as it should, I might now consider another Sigma on the strength of their service, and warranty.

I do love my L's though.

[quickben]

As noted in a previous thread, I was less then impressed with the performance of my Sigma 17-35 f2.8 EX lens. However, with no other quality lens to compare it to, I assumed this was the best that could be expected.

Subsequent purchase of a Canon L Series lens demonstrated how poor this lens really was. I was rightly taken to task on this forum for moaning about the lens without returning it to Sigma, so I took the posters advice and packed it off to Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd.

It transpired that the lens was indeed faulty and an estimate for repair was returned.

I was a little disappointed that I should be expected to pay to repair a lens which I purchased new and had never dropped or abused in any way during pretty leisurely use over a period of 20 months at most. I made this point to Sigma and, despite some confusion over the registration of the lens, they offered to carry out the repairs under warranty. Top bunnies, big thumbs up for Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd.

I am now very excited about the possible performance of this lens.

It would seem that mine is sufficiently poor to require return to Japan for repair. Once it comes back it will then be tested again and, if necessary, will be calibrated for my body.

Obviously all will be revealed in somewhere up to eight weeks when I should get the lens back. However, I can't fault Sigma for their initial efforts in resolving the issue.

Thanks again to the poster who kicked me into gear and here's hoping I will soon be joining those enthusiastic about Sigma lenses.

Hi Jon,

I'm happy that you're getting your lens problem rectified. However, I wouldn't be happy with the length of time they're going to take to get it back in your hands. 2 months, and that's after they've had it for a couple of weeks to test it !

At the very least, I would expect a replacement lens while they sort out the mistakes THEY made while building it. What would happen if you were a pro and you need this lens for a job, you would be out of pocket because Sigma's quality control is crap.

The way I see it, buying a Sigma is a lottery. You pay your money, you take your chances. I've had two Sigmas in the past. A 70-200 2.8 EX, which was spot on, and a 30 1.4 EX, which was utter crap. With the 30 1.4, I actually think one of the inner elements was put in wonky as the top 3rd of every photo was slightly out of focus !

I didn't bother sending it to Sigma to get fixed as I thought any manufacturer who can get things THAT wrong isn't worth bothering with. I'm glad I didn't if that is how long they take to fix one. So I returned it and bought a 17-40L. I've never looked back.

Sorry about the rant, but I've owned 7 Canon lenses, 2 Sigmas and 2 Tamrons.
I've only had problems with Sigma.

Gary.

[John Sims]

Hi Gary,

It isn't until you don't have a lens that you realise how much you use it. The difference between 17mm and 24mm is massive, as I am now finding. I do miss the wide end.

While I can't comment for the esteemed gathering on this forum - I believe that many who buy Sigma lenses don't have access to a truly great lens with which to compare it. I count myself in that camp.

When I bought the lens, 20 odd months ago, I'd read the advertising literature and assumed, due to the specification, that this should be a good lens. In comparison to my kit lens it was an OK lens - not obviously worse - which is why I didn't send it back.

It wasn't until very recently, when my wife and I bought ourselves some L series lenses that it became so obvious that the Sigma was lacking. It was then that I went back through my photos reviewing the ones that I had been disappointed with, and analysed the settings and focus point. This critical analysis highlighted the shortcomings of this lens.

I fully accept that some may harangue me for not undertaking a stringent test regime on the arrival of the lens. In honesty, I assumed it would be a good lens and got on and used it. Any poor results I put down to fault on my part, or assumed that digital didn't have the ability to capture as crisp an image as film so that was as good as it gets. Obviously knowledge gained from this forum then prompted me to question that assumption.

As noted previously I am relieved that the lens has been found to be faulty as this means the repaired lens should be significantly better. Whether it will be L standard better (as some have suggested) remains to be seen. By the same token, I didn't pay L money for it.

Your comments with regard to delay, and loss of use, are well put. But, considering the time I have had the lens, and the issues confirming warranty status, I am just happy that the lens is being fixed.

I am very excited about getting the lens back now though.

[quickben]

Hi Jon,

Please don't get me wrong. It was not my intention to criticise you for going ahead with the repairs. I was saying that I, personally, wouldn't be happy with the expected duration of them. But then I'm a very impatient person :-).

All I was saying was that in the future, unless there is a particular type of lens that only Sigma make i.e the 120-300 f2.8 (which I fully intend to try one day), I'll be buying Canon or Tamron. This is not due to any kind of brand loyalty/snobbery, just the fact that I'm not prepared to send a lens back straight away for calibration (something that should have been done before it got anywhere near a shop or retailer) plus all the subsequent correspondence involved (yes, I'm that lazy :-()

Having said all that, I sincerely hope you enjoy your 17-35 2.8 as much as I enjoyed my 70-200 2.8. It was an excellent lens and I only replaced it with the 200 2.8L prime because I wanted something a little smaller.

Gary.

[John Sims]

Hi Jon,

Please don't get me wrong. It was not my intention to criticise you for going ahead with the repairs......

No worries at all Garry. It wasn't taken as criticism at all. It was a very valid point.


...... I sincerely hope you enjoy your 17-35 2.8 as much as I enjoyed my 70-200 2.8. It was an excellent lens......

Gary.

I couldn't agree more with regard to the 70-200. I picked one up on eBay (guy upgrading to IS). It is a fabulous lens. My wife has a new f4 and that seems equally impressive.