Considering Quattro H concerned about SA lenses

Scottelly wrote:

danski0224 wrote:

dazzleships wrote:

I guess I misstated my concern: Sigma is making no more SA cameras. I spend $2-3k on SA lenses they will be worth nothing compared to their Nikon, Canon, Sony counterparts in 3-5 years. Like M42, which were all but worthless until mirrorless cameras came out. Sigma wants $200+ to convert SA to another mount. I am not buying into an already obsolete system. I really want an QH but will hold onto my DP Merrills and see where FF Foveon goes.

Canon lenses are obsolete 10 years or less from the release of the new version. Imagine how the owners of a 600mm f/4 II at around $12,000.00 feel with the availability of the version 3 of that lens was announced.

I see. On eBay it does look like you can save a few thousand dollars by getting the slightly older model. Of course we're talking about premium products here. Get a used Rolls Royce or boat, and you'll save a lot of money too. The newest models, when sold brand new, are almost always much more expensive than used ones, and the used ones that are older models are a lot less than the used ones that are the latest model. That's just the way the World works.

These were just used as an example for becoming "obsolete", and in Canon-land, not serviceable from the manufacturer.

Or, the 70-200 f/2.8 VII to the VIII, which seems to be nothing more than a different paint color and some coatings.

There are often slight changes internally too. Sometimes they change a lens or a motor. I think it's very rare that they make a new model with just different paint and some different coatings on the lenses. Even so, that can have a slight difference in image quality. Take the difference between a Canon 5 D Mk II and the 5 D Mk III. Not much difference, right? I mean one is 21 MP and the newer model is 22 MP. That'd make you think there's like almost no difference. I think there's a lot more to it than that though. There are differences between more than just the sensor resolution though. The shooting buffer is bigger, the auto-focus is different in the newer model (more AF points), the newer model shoots faster, the ISO setting goes higher, the video capability has been improved (it goes up to 60 fps and includes a 24p mode for cinematic purposes), etc. etc. The newer models of lenses often have a variety of improvements too (i.e. improved image stabilization, faster auto-focus, etc.).

I hate these long re-quotes...

LensRentals did a teardown of the 70-200 III, and found no differences.

The Canon EF 500mm f/4 and the EF 400mm f/2.8 have gone "obsolete", and values plummeted.

Sigma lens support is also finite. I am not aware of anything specified in writing though.

The old 70mm macro is not serviceable, and I would assume that any lenses from that period are also not serviceable.

When you say serviceable, I am guessing you mean that Sigma will not repair them. What about third-party lens repair shops? Don't you think they might fix them?

If the third party shops can get the parts. If the third party shops have the equipment to bring the lenses back to spec. With the more common varieties of lenses, it may be less expensive to source another working copy than to attempt to fix the broken one.

How long will Sigma service something like the current version of the 105mm macro that is also on sale?

They will keep servicing them for at least as long as the warranty has not expired, and the warranty of Sigma lenses now is 4 years. "All brand new Sigma Products purchased from a USA authorized Sigma dealers are covered for 4yr USA warranty against defects in manufacturing and workmanship only (Cine lenses come with only 1yr warranty)." - https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/warranty-registration

Now I guess it's possible that they might tell you as a policy that the lens was abused or got moisture in it, so it is not covered under warranty . . . no matter what is wrong with it. I doubt Sigma wants to do that to their customers though. That would hurt their reputation pretty badly. I haven't tried to get a lens repaired, because frankly a used lens would cost less than a repair, unless it is a very expensive lens, like a big Art lens or a long telephoto lens (i.e. 500mm f4 OS Sport). At this point I haven't had a lens like that, and even if I did, it would probably not have any problems. Those lenses seem to last well.

That said, I have a friend who had a Bigma (Sigma 50-500). It was the model made before they made the OS model. He had a problem with it. It broke (literally part of it broke, and the lens came apart into two pieces). He sent it in to be fixed, and it was returned in a few days, repaired, and working properly. I don't know who he sent it to, but that just shows how older lenses CAN be repaired, even if the repairs have to be made by someone other than Sigma.

Yes, of course they can be repaired- if the parts are available. There are a couple of desirable older Canon lenses that are no longer repairable because spare parts do not exist any longer unless the parts are cannibalized from another broken lens. 200mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.0, 300mm f/2.8 USM (not IS). Yes, those aren't cheap lenses, but these specific ones (and a few others) cannot be fixed any longer. The manufacturers do not make a huge supply of spare parts, and the spares may not become available to outside sources. I would assume that there isn't a huge stockpile of Canon IS assemblies, for example. It is reasonable to assume that Sigma doesn't have an unlimited supply either.

Because Sigma is privately held and has an enthusiast  attitude, there might be a better chance for longer term serviceability compared to a company like Canon.

As I understand it, Nikon has clamped down pretty hard on service parts availability for third party shops.

I read that Fuji destroyed extra parts for some of the S-Pro cameras not too long ago and didn't sell them. I don't have a link, but I had an S-Pro 3 at one point and read about it then.