Lens Back From Sigma

Well, after about 7 weeks, my 24-60 has returned better than ever. Sigma recalibrated the front focusing lens and replaced the front element (that one surprised me). I forgot how good the optics are in that lens. That lens is a testament that Sigma can and does make outstanding glass. Yes, Sigma has QC issues, but I think more people need to go after their glass as they are an outstanding alternative to Canon's glass (especially the double standard of when the Canon misses focus, it needs to be taken back; whereas for 3rd party you need to return it and get better glass). For me, the only reason to upgrade would be for a better AF system, which I don't need right now.

I agree. I had both a 120-300 and the new 50mm sent to Sigma for focus adjustments and they both came back with the focus bang on. Both of these lenses are fabulous and I really don't see how a Canon version could be better.

I haven't ever used the Canon 24-70, but I seriously doubt a discernible difference between lenses exists in optics. However, I have no doubt the Canon focuses faster (and hope so for the price).

If I had all the money, I'd buy Canon because of the faster AF, and only slightly when comparing it with HSM, but I wouldn't buy it because the optics are superior to the EX models.

+1 for sigma. There are QC issues, but they have great glass once its calibrated correctly. I love my 30 and had a 50 that was amazing as well.

Agreed...my 50 f/1.4 and 150 f/2.8 macro are in a class by themselves. My 15 fisheye is pretty good too, though the Canon is just as good.

Jman13 wrote in post #7879797
Agreed...my 50 f/1.4 and 150 f/2.8 macro are in a class by themselves. My 15 fisheye is pretty good too, though the Canon is just as good.

How does the 150 compare to Sigma and Canon's 180, besides aperture and FL?

How are you guys getting Sigma to calibrate the lens? Through warranty? What's the turnaround like?

Through warranty. Turn around was a week for me. Pretty quick and it came back perfect.

Good deal, just called them up?

Yep, got the address (its in AZ) and they just asked me to include a brief summary of what was wrong with the lens.

Very impressed with there lenses and service. I have 6 sigmas, and 1 canon kit lens that is never used, 1 canon that had to be replaced by the store because canons service where so horrible.

Only 1 sigma had an issue, and they dealt with it by replacing it for me, as it would take too long to get a part from japan. I will be getting the new 10-20 f/3.5 as soon as I can find one in stock, and I also see a 50mm f/1.4 and maybe a 150-500 at some stage in the future too.

Not considering the competing canons for those 3 lenses, as they are worse spec'd, cost more, come with less and of course canons service = F, sigmas service = A

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #7880981
Very impressed with there lenses and service. I have 6 sigmas, and 1 canon kit lens that is never used, 1 canon that had to be replaced by the store because canons service where so horrible.

Only 1 sigma had an issue, and they dealt with it by replacing it for me, as it would take too long to get a part from japan. I will be getting the new 10-20 f/3.5 as soon as I can find one in stock, and I also see a 50mm f/1.4 and maybe a 150-500 at some stage in the future too.

Not considering the competing canons for those 3 lenses, as they are worse spec'd, cost more, come with less and of course canons service = F, sigmas service = A

I wouldn't give Sigma an A - they did take about 7 weeks to return my lens. And I wouldn't give Canon an F because of one occurrence. Canon also has no equivalent to the 1/50-500, so to say it is better is hyperbolic (if you want to say the 100-400 is the competition, I would get the Canon; I have yet to use or hear of a Sigma having better AF than a Canon, and I would want great AF in a supertelephoto).

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #7883973
I wouldn't give Sigma an A - they did take about 7 weeks to return my lens. And I wouldn't give Canon an F because of one occurrence. Canon also has no equivalent to the 1/50-500, so to say it is better is hyperbolic (if you want to say the 100-400 is the competition, I would get the Canon; I have yet to use or hear of a Sigma having better AF than a Canon, and I would want great AF in a supertelephoto).

I would give them an A. I would give canon an F, can't call them, email is useless takes them 3 days to respond and then they close your case even though all they did was say "try the lens on another camera" which is ironic as your email already informed them that you tried this. In other word they didn't even read the mail.

I have a friend who has had issues with them also. Minimum turn around with canon is 2 weeks and they force you to deal with a 3rd party who deals with them and send it out of country, its a farce, no way on earth they can do anything quicker than 2 weeks. sigma on the other hand can be shiped to in 24 hours and return in 24 hours

I said better spec'd 100mm longer is better, a better specification. All the sigmas mentioned have HSM, and anyone who says USM > HSM is having a laugh there is little to no difference, there super cheap telephoto the 70-300 APO manages fine, so i'm sure the modern 150-500 HSM will do just fine too. Why would anyone pay more money for 100mm less in a telephoto, thats nuts

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #7884583
I would give them an A. I would give canon an F, can't call them, email is useless takes them 3 days to respond and then they close your case even though all they did was say "try the lens on another camera" which is ironic as your email already informed them that you tried this. In other word they didn't even read the mail.

I have a friend who has had issues with them also. Minimum turn around with canon is 2 weeks and they force you to deal with a 3rd party who deals with them and send it out of country, its a farce, no way on earth they can do anything quicker than 2 weeks. sigma on the other hand can be shiped to in 24 hours and return in 24 hours

I said better spec'd 100mm longer is better, a better specification. All the sigmas mentioned have HSM, and anyone who says USM > HSM is having a laugh there is little to no difference, there super cheap telephoto the 70-300 APO manages fine, so i'm sure the modern 150-500 HSM will do just fine too. Why would anyone pay more money for 100mm less in a telephoto, thats nuts

Sigma also shipped my lens to a third party here in the US, not sure how that makes Canon worse. I see we have different experiences with Sigma. They take a month longer for me and takes days to respond to a sentence long e-mail.

Yes, USM is better than HSM. Does it matter for most people? No, but to say that HSM is as fast is silly and untrue. I don't see many, if any, Sigma lenses at sporting events and they would save the photographers a lot of money. But why would they? One needs the top speed in the game and that's USM.