Too many Sigma lens returns?

I called the most reliable camera chain store in my area looking for information on a Sigma lens.

They claim that they stopped selling Sigma lenses due to a 15% return vs. less than 5% returns on any other brand that they stock. I was told by the salesman that Sigma makes a good lens, but they didn't feel good about stocking the Sigmas because of the high rate of return.

I've delt with this company for many years and feel they have the most reliable and experienced staff. They have never steered me wrong before.

I'm thinking of getting the Tamron instead of the Sigma if I see more information that would validate this.

Have you had any experience with this issue?

what focal range are you looking at here? It's possible that Sigma lenses are just more difficult to use, therefore impatient and/or inexperienced photographers are returning them without trying to get used to them. This is seen even on here where someone will get a 70-200 and take crap pictures and blame the lens when 99% of the time it's user error

deadpass wrote in post #2163785
what focal range are you looking at here? It's possible that Sigma lenses are just more difficult to use, therefore impatient and/or inexperienced photographers are returning them without trying to get used to them. This is seen even on here where someone will get a 70-200 and take crap pictures and blame the lens when 99% of the time it's user error

I asked about the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 but I got the strong feeling that (Talls Camera) dropped Sigma for all not just one or two lens.

Seems odd that a camera store would do that unless they had a solid reason to do so. I know my local pro store sells Sigmas, but they don't have them on display (as far as I can remember). You pretty much have to go in and ask for a specific model to see if they have it in stock.Same with Tamron.

Mark

Like everyone else here I want to get my money's worth when I buy something but some times I get the feeling that a lot of people start out with idea that something is going to be wrong with a lense before the even get it so they rush home to run tests to confirm what they already believe.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't return stuff if it doesn't work, what I'm saying is if someone try's hard enough they can find fault with anything and everything.

My kit includes a 35mm 2.0 50mm 1.8 85mm 1.8 Tamron 11-18 and 17-35, Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM DG. I'd love to get some L-glass and will do so one day but until then I'll just enjoy shooting in ignorance

Mike

Hmmm, interesting. Henry's told me exactly the opposite and henry's is the largest photo gear retailer in Canada. They were trying to talk me into a Sigma lens last year, when I got my first Rebel-XT. Last month, when I got my 17-70 DC lens, the guy told me it's one of the hottest selling WA lens today and it just came out a few months ago. Retailers have a good interest protecting the Sigma brand because the markup is higher on them, but that besides the point. What you were told just isn't true...

Samy's official word is that since Sigma reverse engineers the mount/electronics, so they don't sell them. They also say that Tamron pays for the license to use them so they sell Tamrons, which doesn't seem to answer for the lensbaby or Tokinas they sell.

If they don't sell Sigma's I wonder how they know about return rates and how long ago that was if it was from a time that they sold them. I heard long time ago, all third party makers weren't very good. As for me, I've bought 5 Sigmas and never had any problems with any of them.

Personally, I think salesmen tell you whatever you want to hear to sell the stuff that they have and need to move out of the store.

Just Be wrote in post #2163807
I asked about the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 but I got the strong feeling that (Talls Camera) dropped Sigma for all not just one or two lens.

I asked a local Talls a few months back about the 30 f/1.4 and got the same story. They'd stopped carrying Sigmas due to the high rate of returns. I don't remember if a specific rate was quoted. You didn't happen to be at Southcenter (or whatever it is they're calling it now)?

Given the opportunity to suggest a comparable lens that they did carry in which I might be interested, the salesman was mute. Seems to me they missed a couple of opportunities to try for a sale during my visit.

WOW! I didnt know Sigma was that bad...

Sometimes a manufacturer will be the one to stop supplying a retailer with products and its not always the retailer that makes that decision, but they would not tell you that. Also, retailers stick with the companies that yield them the greatest profit and sometimes they choose one over another instead of carrying both lines. It could be that QC with Sigma is not what it should be but with return and exchange policies being what they are you can always return and swap a lens if need be.
For every retailer or Sigma owner that has a bad experience I am sure there are many more that report good experiences. I can't imagine all these stores and online shops selling products with a 15% return rate.

Luckie8 wrote in post #2163919
WOW! I didnt know Sigma was that bad...

It's this kind of isolated anecdotal post that puts a spin, or a negative spin, on products on manufacturers.
If we were to start compiling stories about those that bought Canon lenses that had problems with AF or IS we could make then look just as bad.

You always have to put things in perspective. Look at all the completely satisfied Sigma lens owners in these forums and in the reviews that you find when you start googling reviews.

And lemons exist in everything we buy. You can drive a Mercedes-Benz out of the showroom and have trouble with it as well. It's all perspective.

So far, in less than two years I returned two Canon lenses for service, but none of my Sigma products ever had to go back for any reason. Just sold a really beat-up Sigma 18-50 2.8 with a scratched front element, and even that lens was still fully operational and taking nice shots.

ibdb wrote in post #2163909
I asked a local Talls a few months back about the 30 f/1.4 and got the same story. They'd stopped carrying Sigmas due to the high rate of returns. I don't remember if a specific rate was quoted. You didn't happen to be at Southcenter (or whatever it is they're calling it now)?

Given the opportunity to suggest a comparable lens that they did carry in which I might be interested, the salesman was mute. Seems to me they missed a couple of opportunities to try for a sale during my visit.

Hey neighbor!
I'm in Auburn.
Yes, it was the Westfield shopping center aka Southcenter.

The guy I talked to did recommend the Tamron 17-50 only after I asked about it. They stock it $499. I would have been more skeptical if he came right out with it and appeared to be pushing what they sell and stock.

I've had good Sigma lenses - particularly the 70-200/2.8 which was very nice except for wide-open. But I've also had 2 - 20/1.8 lenses that didn't quite cut it. Just sent one back last week due to a very uneven focus plane, and I'm hoping for a better replacement. The downside of living where I do is that there are no big camera shops where I can test the product before buying.

TMR Design wrote in post #2163944
It's this kind of isolated anecdotal post that puts a spin, or a negative spin, on products on manufacturers.
If we were to start compiling stories about those that bought Canon lenses that had problems with AF or IS we could make then look just as bad.

You always have to put things in perspective. Look at all the completely satisfied Sigma lens owners in these forums and in the reviews that you find when you start googling reviews.

And lemons exist in everything we buy. You can drive a Mercedes-Benz out of the showroom and have trouble with it as well. It's all perspective.

As you can read in my origianl post, I was just telling everyone my experience. I'm not saying that Talls is 100% correct. I've delt with them since the early 90's without issue or reason to doubt their word.

My first thought was that the line was pulled by Sigma.

I just wanted to find out if others had heard or experienced the same thing.