"The Sigma Saga"

I would just say, as another data point, that here in Los Angeles the illustrious Samy's Camera sends a rental lens back to the manufacturer if it's returned with scratches or dings. And you the renter pays the bill for this, including the daily rental charge for each day the lens is no longer in the rental inventory, although sometimes they may waive this charge. What did a few scratches on a Mamiya 6x7 lens cost me? 374 bucks. Ouch. But you know what? I actually support this program. It weeds out idiots who abuse equipment and insures that the equipment you rent actually works when you get to the location and start shooting.

Laurence Matson said:

Which is what I also am.

I have a modest collection of Sigma lenses, including some of their
unique ones. I keep one case filled with a 300-800, 120-300, Gitzo
tripod and Wimberly head. This is the set that has traveled around
the world a few times for use by me or others. And although
everything looks a bit scuffed up, nothing has been broken or failed.

What occurred to me while reading this note was how much these lenses
must be beat up by those renting them. Also, I wondered how they
define "failure."

In my few years of experience in photography, I have "broken" one
lens, which would be how I would define failure. I watched a baggage
handling clerk fling my camera case on to the belt while transferring
at Newark, and the harvest was a broken 105 macro when I arrived in
Norfolk.

So I wonder what they mean by "failure" and also what they do to
ensure that this stuff is properly handled. "Breaking" any lens is
not as easy as you think.

--
Laurence

Digital has become an excuse for people, who either feel what they've
got isn't enough or don't know what they're doing.

Ridley Scott

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9

Click to expand...

--
Digital photography is a solution in search of a problem.

I must say that I'm a bit confused by the percentages being thrown around in this thread. A 30% failure rate is huge.

I own 7 Sigma lenses at last count, with a new (well...used) one on the way. I have owned the majority of them for about 4 years.

I do not, as a general rule, experience 'good luck'.

At a 30% failure rate, I should have had an issue with 2 to 3 lenses already.

I have not had even one.

Something seems seriously wrong with these numbers, to my experience. And like others who've replied into this thread ... I'm careful, but I do not baby these things. My wife loves each new Sigma Handbag that comes with each piece of glass ... typically the bag and the glass are separated upon delivery, and the orphans never see each other again.

Hey, maybe I AM lucky. Haven't gotten that 'lucky shot' though. I think I need some more equipment

-pvs

Just this year, I've been to Death Valley, Iceland and Japan - and taken at least 4 lenses to each. I don't have a special case - just a rucksack. I keep the lenses in the original bags and fortunately I haven't dropped one badly yet (though one did roll down a hill a bit in Iceland) but I hardly coddle them. They've been through desert sandstorms, snow, rain and even a geyser. Never had a problem.

--
Sigma DSLR and DP1 owner in London.
See my profile for my equipment list

Laurence Matson said:

What occurred to me while reading this note was how much these lenses
must be beat up by those renting them. Also, I wondered how they
define "failure."

So I wonder what they mean by "failure" and also what they do to
ensure that this stuff is properly handled. "Breaking" any lens is
not as easy as you think.

--
Laurence

Click to expand...

I guess all lenses (brands) are subjected to more or less the same treatment so maybe some are built with more professional (read harsh) usage in mind.

Radu

Chris Rijk said:

Just this year, I've been to Death Valley, Iceland and Japan - and
taken at least 4 lenses to each. I don't have a special case - just a
rucksack. I keep the lenses in the original bags and fortunately I
haven't dropped one badly yet (though one did roll down a hill a bit
in Iceland) but I hardly coddle them. They've been through desert
sandstorms, snow, rain and even a geyser. Never had a problem.

Click to expand...

Chris, I caught you on "sensor", when standing a little too close to that Geyser, hope you don't mind showing it now It would have been a better pic if taken 2 seconds later You can see a bigger version at my Flickr site. The red arrow points at Chris:



Halldor

Chris Rijk said:

--
Sigma DSLR and DP1 owner in London.
See my profile for my equipment list

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eirod/

If that's the shot that got me, I ran all the way from there to the outer ropes to try to get away but still got splashed. Though I had thought I was standing some distance away in the first place...

--
Sigma DSLR and DP1 owner in London.
See my profile for my equipment list

Backgroud:
My friend Janne has now sold Sigma lens line for a while and is selling a lot.

I do preliminary testing for Janne and test some returned lenses in cases where some problems in quality is reported. Mainly the problems were earlier with C bodies not focusing correctly that could be fixed by calibrating the camera body.

There has been one lens 100-300 with back focus with one Canon body. I tested it with other 40D body and could not make it do any false focusing.

Some lenses have failed the mail testing when a truck has driven over the box and a plastic bag with unidentified material was returned to sender;-)

Ok, The Classic QC case:

The key word is "very attractive price". When someone buys a 5D (or any other camera) and say Sigma 300mm F2.8 lens and starts to take pictures at low light wide open the results are going to be very bad. There is only one way out, blame the lens. Ok the customer now returns the lens (unsharp, bad focus) and buys a Canon lens with IS at a huge price. The results are still bad, very bad. Now he/she cannot blame the lens anymore. What is the next possibility. To learn how to use the camera. To master a very shallow DOF of long teles takes time yet to understand how the focusing really works.

A good advice for the rental was already given, I would add adjust the price (higher) as there is no eq. for some lenses. Also if there is a 30% fail rate it should be carefully studied.

All my Sigma lenses are working well and I have really used them in all kinds of conditions. The only problem has been the photographer , me.

Best
Aaro

--
!!! Sorry, I don't use blurr filter in my camera, film or digital.



http://www.lumisoft.fi/gallery

Lets first - for simplicity - assume that the company publishing this really exists and the one writing on their web site is quite sane. Those are not necessary true - but rather likely.

Lets then make three different assumptions

1. It is really true. A company renting lots of lenses have hard figures for Sigma lenses being far below the competition in quality. Its beyond all doubt.

2. The information is exaggerated, they dont have hard figures. They have had problems, but it can be explained by just bad luck. But, as we all know, sometimes feelings and belief is stronger than hard figures.

3. Its pure nonsense. Why they write this stuff beats me.

Now looking at other evidences and using Occam's razor - what do you think?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

I have the same number of lenses (six) and they all work fine. Of course, you can't really compare to Canon or Nikon's expensive lenses in terms of built quality but I sure do not experience as much problem as the original quote suggested.
--
Kenneth

Laurence Matson said:

Some day, you might understand how silly this statement is. In the
meantime, I will leave it up to your intuition. Nuff said.

Click to expand...

It's not silly, it's the truth. If it happens now, that's about time. Maybe it is YOU who one day might understand. After all there are Sigma lenses on the 4/3rds mount and not a single one of them beat their Zuiko counterpart. Have you used the Zuikos vs them? Or you are going by theory here?

Just parading a condescending comment doesn't make it right. And you quoted the whole thing ignoring the fact I quoted a fine arts photography teacher with 30 years of experience which validates what the OP said.

But since you pretty much seem to be someone that apparently works for Sigma in some capacity or are a first class passenger in the Sigma fanboy train, 'nuff said indeed, couldn't agree more.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Starstrider said:

For all the negativity being directed at Sigma for some reason in the
last few days, then why do they stay in business, if they are such a
poor company? Obviously their quality must be good enough for people
to continue using them.

Click to expand...

Because they are cheaper than the other alternative. They also do have some unique lenses. From what I have seen the main problem they have for their good lenses is quality control. Everything the OP said validates what my teacher warned me about.

BobTN said:

Not sure what is up with this rental
establishment. The lenses could be handled improperly by employees as
well as renters. All I know a lot of people use them, so they must
have some value as opposed to all the negative comments about them.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. They are cheaper.

BobTN said:

If people don't like a brand then don't use it. That's the quickest
way to get their attention if enough stop purchasing.

Click to expand...

Like everything, not everyone buys a higher end car and many buy the cheaper alternative. And it's not all bad, certainly.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

car analogy. It's sort of obvious, isn't it

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'