Servicing costs

LauraJ23

LauraJ23

Messages
14,759
Name
Laura
Edit My Images
No
I have a Sigma 70-300 apo lens, which is suffering on and off, the diaphragm keeps sticking, between pictures, and sometimes remains closed fluffing up some pictures. It doesnt do it all the time but when it does, I am a little miffed, also theres a dead bug (which doesnt show up) in the front element.

I looked on sigmas website and they charge around the £70 mark, which is roughly £100 less than a new lens. Is it just me, but it seems rather high considering what it sells for in the shops, it was brought for £140.. I can't get it done yet, but is a service worth it on this lens?
 
If you bought it for £140 then it doesn't seem worth it!
 
michael23 said:
I looked on sigmas website and they charge around the £70 mark, which is roughly £100 less than a new lens. Is it just me, but it seems rather high considering what it sells for in the shops, it was brought for £140.. I can't get it done yet, but is a service worth it on this lens?
Click to expand...

Man-hours of labour in servicing take no account of the value of the object being serviced. It's certainly true with cars and I imagine it's true with lenses as well.
 
The postage/carriage, weight to consider too if you haven't already, not to mention the waiting time if it's in a queue with others.
 
Think I'd be inclined at that price, to be saving up and buying a new lens - either the same or take the opportunity and buy an upgrade.

Have you tried any local camera repair shops, they may charge less ?
 
The problem with servicing is, like it's already been pointed out, it's mainly based around labour costs so unless you're having something repaired/serviced that costs a fair whack, it ends up being a pointless excercise when you could buy a new lens instead.

If you can afford it, try a 75-300mm IS f/4-5.6 as an alternative. Used I think they're about £300 but the IS and the optics make this a great buy.
 
specialman said:
The problem with servicing is, like it's already been pointed out, it's mainly based around labour costs so unless you're having something repaired/serviced that costs a fair whack, it ends up being a pointless excercise when you could buy a new lens instead.

If you can afford it, try a 75-300mm IS f/4-5.6 as an alternative. Used I think they're about £300 but the IS and the optics make this a great buy.
Click to expand...

75-300 is arguably the worst Canon lens ever made. Avoid it like plague.
 
70-300 (check the link).... great lens for what it sells for. Have a fleet of them at work and they do a find job for what they cost....

Agreed, standard 75-300 (and 90-300) are dog poop......
 
Last edited:
I agree, I chose the sigma over the canon, couldnt believe how much I hated it. 70-200 f4 is a very nice idea, but I would miss the 300mm end as I like birds in flight and wildlife. I already have a 200mm f2.8 as well,
So the is version of canons 70-300 is a good one, I thought I had read comments somewhere that its soft at 300mm? -I cant remember now. There is also the new os sigma and tamron vc, :thinking: plenty to think on here!
 
It's not 300mm f/2.8 L quality at the long end, but it's still good. I used to find that there was a lack of resolution with it, especially when shooting tiny, far-off subjects (probably the case wth all but the best, highest resolution lenses). But shooting closer or zooming right in (such as doing body shots of guys fishing) it was brilliant. The IS works pretty well and the AF was good too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top