Sigma Lens Quality

Sigma 75-300 f 4.5/5.6 - failed after 10 months

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG - failed after about 6 years, average use

both zooms - my only experience is with primes and were fantastic

I have notices a trend of people loving the 30, 50 and 85mm f/1.4 and not having issues (or exceedingly few and far between) whereas the zooms tend to be problematic.

possibly and oversimplification but seems primes = good whereas zooms = bad from sigma
 
both zooms - my only experience is with primes and were fantastic

I have notices a trend of people loving the 30, 50 and 85mm f/1.4 and not having issues (or exceedingly few and far between) whereas the zooms tend to be problematic.

possibly and oversimplification but seems primes = good whereas zooms = bad from sigma

Massive over simplification!

70-200 f/2.8
50-500
150-500

All awesome lenses!
 
neil_g said:
i think you need to add the word "cheap" before "zooms"....

;)

How do you classify cheap? I mean absolute or relative. The 24-70 HSM is ~£600 which I don't think is cheap but it's roughly half the price of the canon/nikon lenses.
 
I've had a few:

24-70 f/2.8 non-HSM - Not as sharp as the canon equivalent, but a very capable and usable lens. 1/4 of the price, but not 1/4 of the lens :D

70-200 f/2.8 - Great lens, only sold mine as it wasn't really long enough on full-frame for what I was doing at the time

120-300 f/2.8 - A beast of a lens, and comparable to L lenses in terms of sharpness. Also, neither Canon or Nikon make a lens in this category.

Obviously there are a few people who honestly believe that all sigma lenses are a pile of <insert whatever offensive noun you like>, but it's just not the case. Yes, they have more QC problems than Canon and Nikon, but as long as you make sure the copy is a good one, you can save yourself a heap of cash!
 
Considering the volume of lenses Sigma sell over the different mounts they are obviously going to get more complaints. I would love to know the ratio of sales but I would imagine it is quite high.

Even if you said they sold only twice as many (I image it is a much higher number) 70-200mm lenses than Canon due to the price then add Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony mounts you are looking at a lot more lenses which means more faults.
 
How do you classify cheap? I mean absolute or relative.

maybe that was the wrong thing to say. i was going to say that the non EX range, but saying that some people have great results from some lenses. so im going to retract that statement regarding "cheap".

I love my 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO. Pin sharp and great colour and contrast

indeed, i loved mine before i sold it (had to for the 1.3x crop on the 1D) but recently got the missus one for her 20D and thats supurb also.
 
No problems with regards quality for me. Really happy with my 10-20.
 
im 6 for 6 on good copies.. either im extremely lucky or the sigma QC "issue" isnt as bad as some people make out.

any decent camera shop should let you try the lens in store, just try some shots at varying focal lengths and apertures.

The problem is they would let you try the one on display but not the one you are buying.
 
ziggy© said:
The problem is they would let you try the one on display but not the one you are buying.

Any probs just take it back.

They all come with 3 yr warranties now anyway. 9/10 lenses bought will be fine!
 
I am not sure how you would determin IQ of a given lens in a shop I doubt even expanding the image that I would see or evaluate a soft image on the 3" LCD of my camera. I may be able to differentiate between two images from different lenses and how many shops would let you set up on a tripod the camera and chart in the shop. Surely it's a case of take it home perform the test and then if you are not happy it's argue the toss with the shop and probably end up sending back to the manufacturer.
 
Thanks for the help/comments/advice everyone.

Still feel slightly apprehensive but will be getting the Sigma :)
 
Back
Top