Thinking of buying Sigma?

I've owned four different Sigma EX lenses, two of which are considered to be "problematic" models. Each one has worked flawlessly an produced fantastic images. I own a Sigma flash that has never given me any grief. Perhaps I'm just lucky.

RPCrowe wrote in post #6537329
Sigma reverse-engineers their Canon mount lenses.

my understanding is that tamron reverse-engineer their lenses too...

I must be lucky as well or maybe there is just something wrong with my eyesight but I own and use four Sigma lenses (no returns or adjustments) very frequently and the photos come out great.

"One third of the Sigma 150-500 and 120-400 lenses we bought were defective out of the box and had to be exchanged. "

At the price-point, this isn't shocking. The 120-400 is 1/3rd the price of the 100-400L in the home country... and isn't marketed as EX grade. These two aren't pro gear by a long stretch, and a consumer lens, certainly of that size/bulk, is asking for trouble in a professional rental capacity. The great thing about the 3rd parties is getting roughly the "same" image down on the sensor for a lot less money. On occasion you could get a lens that out-builds Canon (50/1.4 is about it...), but this isn't generally Sigma's forte. After lending out my 30/1.4 last month I had some AF troubles thinking the motor was dying (a problem which is temporarily gone, I think its back in working order after some TLC) but was caused by the "rough" use of the MF ring by DSLR-newbie co-workers.

changes13 wrote in post #6537286
I picked up the sigma 30mm for the nikon body i just got, it seems "ok." AF isnt horribly wrong, however, it isnt dead on every time either. Seems 1 in 2 shots are slight out of focus. This post scares me.

If you aren't getting consistently off focus... then it isn't miscalibration of the lens at play. The 30/1.4 take a while to get used to, and success rate depends also on your own style and technique. Three years in, I have to will it to misfocus.

Riff Raff wrote in post #6537903
Wow, one of the more annoying Internet phrases actually seems appropriate here: Epic Fail.

As if l33t speak didn't give me douche-chills...

I have owned 2 canon lenses, 1 needed replacement.
I do own 2 sigma lenses, both worked flawless out of the box.

That is all the info I need. That article is not realistic for the man on the street, and even for a rental company something is odd. They say 1/4 failures are "after shipping, not after use" well hell good think I transport my lenses to and from shoots and don't rely on shipping companies to do it for me

They said the 120-300 are 90% failing out of the box only 1 failed in use. The others (lets assume the other 8 ) all where out of the box failures?? Me thinks someone has supplier/shipping problems with that lens, otherwise Sigma would be loosing money hand over fist if only 10% of them worked out of the box.

What you buy has no relation to how they are in rental situations. If you rent a popular movie after the initial rush on DVD its likely to be covered in scratches due to all the rentals its had. If you buy the same DVD in a store for your own use, it will likely not have any scratches and stay scratch free for the entire time you own/use it. This is the huge difference between rental use and real world use.

I for one live in the real world and will happily buy sigma again.

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #6540274
They said the 120-300 are 90% failing out of the box only 1 failed in use. The others (lets assume the other 8 ) all where out of the box failures??

again, if you read the article properly, it doesn't say this ANYWHERE!
the repair rate for the 120-300 is 90%, but there's no mention of failing out of the box rate for this lens...
besides, your analogy of the DVD doesn't quite work...the popular DVDs get scratched more often because they are exactly that - more popular. i would hazard a guess that people would prefer to pay a tiny bit more to rent canon L glass as opposed to sigma lenses. So the popular DVD in the lens world would be the canon L lenses. Going by your analogy, it should be canon lenses which breakdown more often...

honestly, i'm glad you've had a good experience with sigma lenses, and i hope any future purchases will be equally problem-free. but you're reading in your slant into what the article is saying.

sol95 wrote in post #6540458
again, if you read the article properly, it doesn't say this ANYWHERE!
the repair rate for the 120-300 is 90%, but there's no mention of failing out of the box rate for this lens...
besides, your analogy of the DVD doesn't quite work...the popular DVDs get scratched more often because they are exactly that - more popular. i would hazard a guess that people would prefer to pay a tiny bit more to rent canon L glass as opposed to sigma lenses. So the popular DVD in the lens world would be the canon L lenses. Going by your analogy, it should be canon lenses which breakdown more often...

honestly, i'm glad you've had a good experience with sigma lenses, and i hope any future purchases will be equally problem-free. but you're reading in your slant into what the article is saying.

And you have your slant also. Either way its easy to find holes in this data, and data that resembles Swiss cheese serves no useful purpose.

I don't question Lens Rentals' integrity and they have every right to post this at their site. It is also an interesting and useful read. That said, Sigma's world won't stop and they'll just continue to be the largest manufacturer of 3rd party glass in the world. Photo forums don't mess up their overall numbers

Of my 10 lenses, 2 are Sigma EX lenses, and they're optically and functionally as good as they get for their respective category.

I think this raises a most interesting point. It is one thing to hear one persons own experience (something that these forums are full of.) But, another thing to look at the situation overall. There will always be someone who praises lens X and someone else who says it is a dog. Too often, I believe, people make decisions based on what they hear 1 or 2 people say. Sadly, that is often the only info they have to go on.

It could also be an importer that is causing the problems. If the company is getting it's lenses from one source, they may not be as careful with shipping as they should be. I've laways reckoned that was the story with some of the "I got 4 XXD's from the same sotre and none of them worked" tales.

The_Camera_Poser wrote in post #6542707
It could also be an importer that is causing the problems. If the company is getting it's lenses from one source, they may not be as careful with shipping as they should be. I've laways reckoned that was the story with some of the "I got 4 XXD's from the same sotre and none of them worked" tales.

if you believe that i've got a bridge in alaska to sell you !

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #6543064
if you believe that i've got a bridge in alaska to sell you !

ed rader

Can I see Russia from it?

KenjiS wrote in post #6538495
Seconded, I had that on my EOS-3, fricking loved that lens..

So much so I bought its Digi brother! the 10-20, and I'm IMPRESSED

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=6538433#p​ost6538433 (Scroll up for the pics and my crop torture test)

Holy crop batman .. lol, that's some serious torture alright!

KenjiS wrote in post #6538495
I saw a Sigma 400 f/5.6 recently
How much do you think it was? $500? Nope, way off

$180, $180 for a 400mm f/5.6 prime at a larger camera dealer who i know would gladly take it back if it didnt work right on your body

I very seriously considered nabbing it, and if they still have it, I just might!

Ummm, whuddya waitin fer? Heheheh, hurry .. before I call him and get it ..

LightRules wrote in post #6541009
I don't question Lens Rentals' integrity and they have every right to post this at their site. It is also an interesting and useful read. That said, Sigma's world won't stop and they'll just continue to be the largest manufacturer of 3rd party glass in the world. Photo forums don't mess up their overall numbers

Of my 10 lenses, 2 are Sigma EX lenses, and they're optically and functionally as good as they get for their respective category.

I have to agree that is why I posted that it would be interesting to have LensRentals.com post the exact issues they are encountering. To simply say "failure" is kinda vague. Like you I in no way doubt that LensRentals.com must be having issues for sure and consistently. So, hopefully they will aid their customers who use their service to evaluate lenses or even have them already, by giving some more details. Perhaps it will help a pattern emerge (or point to something in their supply chain...)

I am happy with my Sigma's...and my el cheapo 55-250. But I lack the experience to know what I should be looking for...I mean for all I know an "out of the box failure" could be a lens coating problem or an AF motor that is fried...for now though, we need more detail.

People can slice and dice this however they want, but there are some unavoidable conclusions that do not need parsing of the data.

In heavy use, the Sigma lenses need service at a much higher rate than the Canon lenses.

In heavy use, the EF-S (non-L) lenses need service at a higher rate than the Canon L series lenses.

The large number of lenses that Lensrentals owns of each type makes the conclusions valid (these are not just one or two lemons).

The heavy use that these lenses see accelerates the failure rate (i.e. Lensrentals probably sees as many failures in 1 year as a more moderate user might see in 10) but this does not change the relative rates.

Can an individual own one of the worst lenses in the list and have a good experience? Of course! This is why anecdotal evidence of individuals is useless for reliability data and a collection such as Lensrentals posted is invaluable.