Is the 3rd party QC lottery fact or fiction?

The biggest thing keeping me from buying a Sigma is the supposed quality control lottery of Sigma products. I know that many of you own or have owned perfect and trouble free Sigma lenses, but why all the stories? Is it a case of the squeaky wheel getting all the attention? I would really like the Sigma 50-500, because of it's versatility, greater range, and comparable price with the Canon. The Sigma 150-500 is attractive because of the price and range. The Canon, because it's a a Canon, and if the price isn't a problem, you can't go wrong...

I want to buy new because the prices I have been seeing on used lenses are not that far off of new prices, and also I won't have to worry about inheriting someone elses problems.

I will be shooting various youth outdoor sports including soccer, and baseball, vintage motocross, and trips to the zoo.


The three lenses I am interested in are (in order of preference):

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM $1499 @ B&H, Adorama & Amazon.
2. Sigma 50-500 f/5-6.6 OS HSM etc. $1509 @ B&H, Adorama & Amazon.
3. Sigma 150-500 f/4.5-6.3 OS HSM etc. $1069 @ B&H, Adorama & Amazon.

From experience, get the Canon. Yes, it's IS is dated. But I found the images to be better.

TEST ALL THREE! I have a Sigma and I love it! My particular copy of the 18 - 200 is sharper than my 18 - 55! Try each lens, see what suits your needs best, and also has the highest quality in terms of IQ!

Some 3rd party lenses are known to be prone with QC issue (Sigmalux, Sigma 30 etc).

Luckily the 2 you listed are not.

However out of those 3 the Canon is just better. Just look at the price, cheaper than Canon, crazy superzoom range, you are basically trading IQ and AF speed/accuracy for reach.

Bottom line - You get what you pay for.

I don't have experience with any of those lens but I do with other Sigma lens, and it has always been superb.

I had a Sigma 30mm that did not have any issues with focus and I only sold it for the newer sigma 35mm when I went full frame. I still use the 17-50 as the walk around lens on the 7d.

I've bought several bodies and lenses over the years, currently own 20 Canon bodies (50D, 7D), 7 lenses, 3 of which are Sigma. I've never had an issue with the Sigma lenses, but have had sporadic problems with the Canon Bodies. Apples/Oranges, I know, but an illustration that it's a crap shoot with any/all things manufactured. NOTHING works perfectly all the time, in every manifestation of the product.

Regards!
Don

hello,

I buy sigma 17-70 and 30 f1.4, because the price but also because where wasn't any equivalent lens in canon brand.

No focus issues.

used on crop body ( 600D )

kin2son wrote in post #15450775
Some 3rd party lenses are known to be prone with QC issue (Sigmalux, Sigma 30 etc).

Luckily the 2 you listed are not.

However out of those 3 the Canon is just better. Just look at the price, cheaper than Canon, crazy superzoom range, you are basically trading IQ and AF speed/accuracy for reach.

Bottom line - You get what you pay for.

Agreed.. Specific lens models exhibit issues more consistently than others (Sigmalux perhaps being the most infamous). I think overall Sigma gets a bad rap across the board, but there do seem to be more posts about QC issues when compared to Canon. Given that the forum is just a tiny percentage of owners, take it with a grain of salt.

I would, however, take the 100-400L hands down, every time. I took it with me to Africa and could not imagine ever doing a similar trip again without it. It's old, ugly and heavy, but amazingly good at what it does.

The QC issues are real, just probably not to the scale people might make you believe. I've personally had issues with multiple copies of the Sigma 85/1.4, so while I have no problem buying the lens, I won't buy a used copy unless it's been thoroughly vetted.

I would buy the canon 100-400. You will not regret that lens at all. It is sharp and has pretty fast focus. I personally loved the push/ pull design.

i'd take the 150-500OS out of your list, unless budget is a major concern...if you have the money for the other two, then it's really more of a toss up...there are quite a few users here that had a 100-400L, and then switched to the 50-500OS when it came out...

as for problems with the 50-500OS, i haven't heard of that many...

here's a comparison with the 100-400L
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=54

I am impressed by Canon quality compared to Nikon, Sigma and Tamron. Reliability is something that takes times to appreciate and I think Canon lenses do have better designs for reliability (apart from quality control).
Quality control is arguably better also.

shujert wrote in post #15451882
The QC issues are real, just probably not to the scale people might make you believe. I've personally had issues with multiple copies of the Sigma 85/1.4, so while I have no problem buying the lens, I won't buy a used copy unless it's been thoroughly vetted.

I would agree, however there are a few exceptions, such as the 30mm f/1.4 which has major quality control issues. The 30mm was the only lens I've had to send back, the front focus was horrendous, didn't need a focus test to figure out it was bad.

I think most Sigma lenses are good, but there is a higher problem rate with them. If you are willing to take a gamble and risk having to send the lens back then go for it. Otherwise go for the Canon, your chances of getting a good copy will be better.

I had 3 Tamrons and 1 Sigma and probably 8-10 different Canon lenses.

Never a single problem with Canon, except for the built-in limitations of 50/1.8.

Out of my 4 3rd party lenses, one was problematic out of the box and had to be returned (Tamron 70-300 VC, the 1st copy). The rest were flawless.

To be fair though, some Canon lenses were somewhat problematic too, just read up on IS failures on 17-55/2.8 IS (seem to have been fixed eventually on later batches).

I will buy 3rd party lenses, as long as I can test or return them.

Fiction .......