How common is the Error 99 with sigma lenses?

[rudder34]

After saving for a while and reading this and other forums I bought a D10. I have read on different forums and this one about the dreaded error 99. My question is: how many people are having problems with this due to sigma lenses? Is there any type of relationship between the error 99 and sigma lenses or will canon lenses do it also? Any input would be appreciated as I am going to purchase some lenses in the future.

[photoguynorth]

The error 99s associated with Sigma lenses are only with older lenses. Even then, Sigma can usually re-chip them for free.
Any new lenses should work without errors.

[Belmondo]

Error 99 is Canon's code for unknown errors. In the case of many older Sigma lenses, it means that there are compatability issues the camera simply can't resolve. Sigma has been good obout re-chipping some of these older lenses in order to make them work, and they have been doing it for free. Not all of the lenses can be made to work, but I sense that most of the better ones can. New Sigma lenses will work just fine.

There are many possible reasons for error 99 messages, but when a Sigma lens is involved, chances are it will be an older lens.

[Adam Hicks]

That Sigma hacks the Canon code vs. licensing it, like Tamron and others do. I wish Tamron would make some longer lenses or a 70-200 2.8 because I'd buy one. I've really enjoyed the 28-75 2.8 lens. Great quality, very sharp and reasonably priced.

If it's true (and I heard it from my camera shop who sells a lot of Sigma) then it bugs me a bit that Sigma is too proud to license the codes from Canon, and that it could result in future incomptibilities like we see now.

Adam

[Belmondo]

I've been told...that Sigma hacks the Canon code vs. licensing it, like Tamron and others do. If it's true ... then it bugs me a bit that Sigma is too proud to license the codes from Canon, and that it could result in future incomptibilities like we see now.

Adam

I'm not sure that Canon licenses the EOS system to anyone. It would seem contrary to their best interests.

[RichardtheSane]

I think that statement is true also.

While it is not in Canon's best interest... Tamron will make and sell the lens anyway... so Canon can make a few bucks (probably a lot of bucks) from Tamron for doing basically nothing.

I know someone who has a very early tamron 70-210... one of the first series of EF lenses Tamron did... it may whine,, clunk and be generally noisey / slow... bu it works on his 10D without any problems!

[photoguynorth]

That Sigma hacks the Canon code vs. licensing it, like Tamron and others do. I wish Tamron would make some longer lenses or a 70-200 2.8 because I'd buy one. I've really enjoyed the 28-75 2.8 lens. Great quality, very sharp and reasonably priced.

If it's true (and I heard it from my camera shop who sells a lot of Sigma) then it bugs me a bit that Sigma is too proud to license the codes from Canon, and that it could result in future incomptibilities like we see now.

Adam

I wish I could find it rather than just go from memory, but I have read a response from Canon that they do not license their design information to anyone. I believe Tamron either does a better job at reverse engineering, or else stick to more basic interfaces to avoid incompatibility (or more likely a combination of both). FWIW, I own an older Sigma 70-300 APO, and the service was fast and free when it needed re-chipping.

[RikWriter]

I wish Tamron would make some longer lenses or a 70-200 2.8 because I'd buy one.

Tamron is coming out with a 200-500 soon.

[RikWriter]

I've used several Sigma lenses with my Digital Rebel and 10D with no Error 99s.

[montyl]

I have gotten this error with my D60 and my Canon 75-300mm IS USM lense, when using the IS in a tropical climate. Kind of frustrating as it caused me to miss some good pictures. It also kind of turned me off on this lense, but until I get something better to replace it, I use it sparingly. So it is not just older Sigma lenses that have this problem.

[DocFrankenstein]

The weakest point of the body/lens system is the contact surface. There's a greater chance that the contacts will go bad than anything else in the camera.

[FullFrontalGraphic]

I'm not sure that Canon licenses the EOS system to anyone. It would seem contrary to their best interests.
According to a Canon representative:"On all of Canon's EOS cameras, any Canon EF series lens is designed for
the camera.

:Canon does not support non Canon equipment. It has not been tested and
we do not know the effects. It could cause malfunctions with the camera.

:A variety of lenses from third-party manufacturers - Sigma, Quantaray,
Tamron, and others - are available in Canon EF mounts to fit Canon EOS
camera bodies. However, contrary to popular belief, these companies are
not "licensed" to produce these lenses; instead, their designers must
basically take apart and analyze EOS cameras and lenses, and then
"reverse-engineer" them to fit and operate on EOS camera bodies.

::Lens to body communication

:"All Canon EF lenses have a microprocessor within the lens that provides
a number of items of information to the camera. When you turn on an EOS
camera (film or digital) the camera and lens communicate, and the camera
"knows" the lens's focal length, if it's a zoom lens the actual zoom
setting it's currently set to, and the maximum and minimum apertures,
among other things. When the camera is activated, this basic information
is transmitted to the camera body's main processor.

:"When the autofocus and light metering are activated by pressing the
shutter button halfway down, additional communication is carried out,
chiefly signaling the aperture control motor within the lens to stop the
diaphragm down to an amount determined by the camera (or the user, if
the camera's used in Av or Manual exposure modes), and a start signal is
sent to the lens's built-in focusing motor to begin driving the focusing
elements of the lens for autofocus. This is only a thumbnail sketch of
what occurs between body and lens. Many additional items are
communicated back and forth between the time the camera is turned on and
the moment the shutter button is fully depressed.

::Communication errors

:"Whenever an EOS camera cannot complete electronic communication with a
lens, or detects an internal disturbance, the camera is designed to
lock-up on the first attempt to fire the shutter. Usually, a
dead-battery icon blinks in the same manner as a "check engine" light in
a car. This assures that there's almost no possibility of a user
shooting an entire wedding or vacation, for instance, with a lens that's
not stopping down its aperture properly or otherwise not working with
the camera properly.

:"Third-party lenses

:"The makers of third-party accessory lenses are not given this
information when Canon introduces new features or improves the
performance of its cameras and lenses. It's up to them to continue to
"reverse-engineer" their equipment to enable it to continue to work on
new EOS bodies as they're developed. Since Canon designs our own
processors and all electronics within the body and lens, we have been
able to maintain backward compatibility. This is one of the many
advantages of choosing a Canon EF lens.

:"When changes in communication result in a third-party lens that now
produces errors, it's up to the makers of that lens to update the
equipment to work on the EOS camera in question. Again, Canon's own EF
lenses work without modification.

:"The meaning of "fully compatible"

:"Many third-party lenses with EF mounts are sold to customers with the
claim by store salespeople or even the lens manufacturer that they're
"fully compatible" with all Canon EOS cameras. Canon, Inc. in Japan and
Canon USA offer no rebuttal to those claims.

:"Any compatibility is based on the reverse engineering we described
earlier in this document. And if a user mounts this lens on a certain
Canon EOS camera and it locks up, it's up to the user to contact the
lens manufacturer (after verifying it's a lens issue; see below) and
tell the lens maker's service department, "make it right."

:"Thank you for choosing Canon.

:"Sincerely,

:"Todd
:"Product Support Representative"
[[Category:Canon]][[Category:Error messages]]

from the Pixel Corps Atheneum article 'error 99'

glenn

[05Xrunner]

WOW...way to dig up a 5year old thread

[Akkis]

I bought a sigma 24 2.8 lens a couple months ago, and had the ER 99 error because the lens needed to be rechipped. I called Sigma and they let me know they are no longer rechipping lenses. They offered a trade in but for rechipping i dont think they are doing it anymore.

[JackProton]

I bought a sigma 24 2.8 lens a couple months ago, and had the ER 99 error because the lens needed to be rechipped. I called Sigma and they let me know they are no longer rechipping lenses. They offered a trade in but for rechipping i dont think they are doing it anymore.

When Sigma was still rechipping lenses, they would only rechip lenses that were still in production. Apparently they've reached a point where they're no longer making ANY of the old lenses that might have once caused this error.

To the OP:
There shouldn't be any ERR99 problems with any new Sigma lenses. This problem was only found when using film era Sigma lenses on dSLRs.

[aoleg]

However, contrary to popular belief, these companies are
not "licensed" to produce these lenses; instead, their designers must
basically take apart and analyze EOS cameras and lenses, and then
"reverse-engineer" them to fit and operate on EOS camera bodies.


Now, does anyone really believe this statement? I mean, Sigma's own cameras (those with Foveon sensors, SD14, SD15 etc.) use EOS communication protocol. Their electrical contacts are compatible with EOS lenses (the mount is different though, and appears to be borrowed from Pentax K). Canon holds multiple patents on the protocol and its implementations. What do you think are the odds for Sigma to manufacture and sell cameras like SD15 on such shaky grounds? I am most certain they bought licenses and rights to use patents from Canon long ago.

Compatibility with future cameras is entirely another matter though. The fact that they bought the current implementation of a protocol does not prevent Canon from developing it further, adding or changing features as they please and without any obligations to Sigma.

(Sources: http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00KR5Y , http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00Bs8p and http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66278 after a quick Google search)

[shanti]

I had the error 99 problem today. I aquired an Asherical Quantaray 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 lens at my local Goodwill for $10. I had a Canon EOS that my mother-in-law gave me after new Canon cameras began stacking up. Tough life!

I shoot Sony, and do a great deal of freelance photo journalism. The Canon, I thought would be a good back-up camera. It actually has a really nice feel to it and takes great photos.

I tried the lens today and started getting an intermittent error 99. I tried cleaning the contacts. This seem to only work for a couple shots. While out at a shoot, I got frustrated and just move the lens to the point where it didn't make contact. I used it in manual focus mode. It worked in a pinch and at least let me demo the lens.

After getting home I tried a few more suggestions which all failed. Interesting enough, in the automatic modes the camera works just fine. I am not sure if rechipping is worth it if I have to pay to do it. Has anyone tried getting their rechipped recently? How much does it cost?

So if you are like me and not sure about rechipping, these solutions will allow you to shoot in a pinch, especially if it is the only camera you have.

1) Shooting in manual focus mode. Disengage your lens via the lens release button. Move counter clockwise a 1/4 inch or until it the metal contacts aren't touching. You can shoot on any setting. Just realize there is no auto focus.

2) Set your dial to one of the 4 first automatic settings "no flash", "low light", "action" and "macro" work the best. I have gotten a couple error 99s while using "Scenery" and "Portrait".

If anyone has found any solutions to the error99 problem, I would love to hear them.

[JackProton]

As meantioned earlier in the thread, the problem occurs with old Sigma lenses when trying to stop the lens down. In AV or Manual mode, you can set the lens' aperture wide open to avoid the error. There no telling if this is the same problem as with your Quantaray lens, however, by getting it to "work" by keeping the contacts misaligned, your Quantaray does appear to have an electrical communication issue - either aperture or focus control. You can probably achieve the same by using a piece of tape. Losing auto-focus may be acceptable but the lens isn't very useful, IMHO, without a working aperture. Unfortunately, I doubt that Quantaray is still rechipping lenses when Sigma has stopped doing so. BTW, when Sigma did rechip lenses, it was a free service with no warranty needed.

[wayne_eddy]

I have the 40D + 17-70mm and 70-200mm and have never had the 99 error.

[mac66]

hi i have this problem i have got a 20d with the sigma 500mm apo 1:7.2 with the ERROR 99 the trouble is i dont want to throw this away some times it works then it dont this lens cost me alot when i was doing film i hope this forum carrys on

[kle_2001]

You can fix the err99 by cover the pins on the lens. There are two groups of pins: 2 pins and 5 pin, just cover the 2 pins side with a small tape and use the manual mode, it should fix all the sigma lens.

Use tape to disable auto function and use the manual mode, It will work for all sigma lens.

[brightsea2001]

My lens is Sigma 24m/2.8, the error is #01 when I set other A value smaller than 2.8.
Can any one help...
Thks...

[JackProton]

My lens is Sigma 24m/2.8, the error is #01 when I set other A value smaller than 2.8.
Can any one help...
Thks...

If you've got an old film era version of the Sigma 24mm f2.8, this is a common incompatibility problem with old Sigma lenses on Canon dSLRs. If its the new version of the 24mm then you can try cleaning the contacts but it may just have a sticky aperture diaphram (I've had this happen before). If you set the camera in Av mode to f16 and look into the lens while pressing the DOF Preview button, you may be able to actually see if the aperture diaphram is trying to close down but getting stuck before it hits f16. In that case, the lens needs factory service.

[brightsea2001]

If you've got an old film era version of the Sigma 24mm f2.8, this is a common incompatibility problem with old Sigma lenses on Canon dSLRs. If its the new version of the 24mm then you can try cleaning the contacts but it may just have a sticky aperture diaphram (I've had this happen before). If you set the camera in Av mode to f16 and look into the lens while pressing the DOF Preview button, you may be able to actually see if the aperture diaphram is trying to close down but getting stuck before it hits f16. In that case, the lens needs factory service.

Jack, thank. My camera is DSLR. Will check at AV = F16 to see what the issue is.

[Anandarajkumar]

Hi Friends,
I got a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro from one my friends who was happily using that in his 40D. Mine is a 400D and it gave the error99. It is working fine only if the aperture is at its widest opening. Other changes in apertures gave this errot. The image would get stored, but I had to switch off and on the camera again everytime.

I checked that with an other friend's 7D where it gave error 01.

So the friend gave the lens to me is checking with Sigma authorized service centre at his place. They have asked for some time, as they have to get some chip from Singapore. We dont have readily avaialble spares for Sigma in India.

[JackProton]

Hi Friends,
I got a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro from one my friends who was happily using that in his 40D. Mine is a 400D and it gave the error99. It is working fine only if the aperture is at its widest opening. Other changes in apertures gave this errot....

The non-OS version of the Sigma 17-70mm is (or at least was) definitately compatible with the 400D so I would tend to suspect the problem isn't the chip in the lens but a stuck aperture. I have not tried my old 17-70mm on the 7D though.