Oh dear

Farno

Farno

Messages
310
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Just received my Sigma 24-70ƒ2.8 today and noticed the box had a damaged corner. After mounting it to my D90 the focus system is not working properly. It will only focus on objects from 0.5m-5.0m and jams if I try to go pass these points.
Gutted.
Sent an email to the vendor regarding splitting the repair cost but so far I have had a reply.
The only packaging around the lens was the pouch and box, then some brown paper. I hope she sent it insured so we can claim repairs back.
 
That sucks mate. And that's damn poor packaging considering what she was shipping. I take it, it was second hand. Where did you get it?
 
Yikez.. My Siggy 24-70 f2.8 is in for recal and lens creep... Jessops quoted 3 - 4 weeks and can take upto 6 allegedly..

Hope it all works out.
 
I think it is very good of you to have offered to pay part of the repair costs. You could return it to the vendor as it is not working (I assume as advertised).
They should have obtained insured postage surely, before shipping the lens?
 
I would say it was damaged in transit due to poor packaging so you as the recipient are not obliged to pay anything towards repair. Good luck with getting a refund.
 
Bought off ebay.
Well I've made the offer now, Very happy with the quality of shots it produces when it does focus. I've asked a mate who had a similar problem with his canon fit 24-70 sigma and it cost him £50. Same problem.
Gonna take it to the same place he used in Newcastle
 
I find the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is a shoddy bit of work, mechanically speaking. Mine sometimes exhibits the same problem (focus and/or zoom jamming) which can be freed up with some random wiggling of the zoom rings. Lately the front end of the lens has a bit of zoom play. This lens is going back to Sigma as soon as I get my hands on the warranty stuff.
 
Postal/Courier Insurance is no substitute for suitable packaging. If something is damaged in transit then it hasn't been properly packaged up - by definition. An egay transaction? I would have immediately returned it to the seller, properly packaged, and insisted upon a full refund.
 
2blue4u said:
If something is damaged in transit then it hasn't been properly packaged up - by definition
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

Yes: By definition, if something is damaged in transit, then it cannot have been packaged well enough for that transit.

No: However, the postal service has a duty of care, and it could be argued that in some circumstances enough care is not taken of the items being transferred. In this case (the no case), insurance should be used. (also sometimes they are not careful where they deliver things to/leave them, and they go missing).

For example, a new suitcase which has been hit so hard it has bent and broken some square tubing which makes up the frame.

From having a damaged corner, it would suggest to me that the box has been dropped. The shock if hitting the ground is what is most likely to have damaged the mechanism. It would be difficult to sensibly have enough of a crumple zone to significantly reduce this impulse force.
But, I don't know the full details of the delivery, so this is just suposition.
 
id be horrified to have a lens sent like that, id also never entertain sending one like it either, if i was the buyer this would be over to a paypal claim by now
 
Yes, I agree with that, my comment was that in cases where the packaging was significant, then insurance should be claimed on.

I purchased a lens from someone on here, I think that it was suitably packaged, but might not have survived a drop (blooming heavy lens for a start).
It was lens in 'pouch' (hard pouch), then polystyrene in original box. Then polysyrene chips around it into a larger cardboard box. (and a nice note on the inside saying 'enjoy' :), its the little things!)
Lens is AOK as far as I am concerned.
However, if the external box had shown signs of damage, and the lens was non-working, then it would definitely be an insurance claim for me. In the OPs case though, a little better packaging would have been good. Either way, the OP shouldn't be out of pocket. It would be for the sender (the initiator of the contract with the parcel company) to claim on the insurance, if they believe it was packaged sufficiently).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top