[rfortson]

LensRentals.com - News: The Sigma Saga

Found this article from LensRental.com about their recent bad experience with Sigma QC. I thought it was interesting given that they use a large variety of Sigma lenses in a variety of mounts.

BTW, I've never had any problems with Sigma. My Bigma has been great. I briefly owned their 55-200 but returned it because I wanted the Pentax 50-200 (brand snob that I am).

[Pål Jensen]

Sigma lenses have always been bad. Probably the worst manufacturer ever coming out of Japan.
In the 90's there was a web page dedicated to problems with Sigma lenses, called SIGnificant MAlfunction!
Nowadays, Pentax try to equal Sigma in the QC department with the DA* 16-50/2.8!

[k100d]

it does seem that Sigma have a decent service department. to back up their products

[dkittle]

I have at one point owned four Sigma lenses, the 17-70, two different 70-300s and the 100-300 which I still have.

The 17-70 was great, no issues except I couldn't get used to the counter clockwise twist to zoom out.

The first 70-300 was crap - really stuck at one point in the zoom which made it VERY frustrating to use. Had it serviced twice and the issue never got resolved. The second 70-300 I got was fine.

The 100-300 is a fantastic lens, but mine doesn't focus to infinity at 100mm. If I go to 110mm or so, it'll lock focus fine. I've asked the store to order me a new lens, hopefully -that- one will work.

I'm not too surprised about having problems with a budget lens (70-300) but I'm VERY dissapointed that I have problems with a brand new EX lens.

[jsherman999]

I've had some cheap consumer Sigma zooms that have been mediocre-to-bad, but my current Sigma 70mm 28 EX DG macro is one of the best lenses optically I've owned. So I think their EX line is pretty good.

[raz-0]

It has been posited more than one place that sigma doesn't have so much a QC problem, as a distributor issue.

The suggestion is that sigma production goes in spurts for various mounts and lenses. They rely on having inventory held by distributors and large resellers to smooth over the ebb and flow of supply. Some lenses are less than perfect, but are often returned to the point of purchase, which rather than have stock tied up in returns to the vnedor or distributor keep on reselling the same bum lenses to many people.

I've got a sigma 17-70 tha I like quite a bit. It's a good copy that I bought used from an actual person who had been using it while they were in short supply for the pentax mount. During that time, there only ever seemed to be a handful for sale at retail, and when they would dry up, someone would be complaining about bad 17-70 copies and return them. Then I'd find a few for sale again.

Especially with less popular mounts, the distribution method can concentrate the bad apples.

Of course some lenses are just built to be cheap bundle fodder and there is no such thing as an actual good copy. You can't polish a turd, and blaming bad QC for the stink is pretty foolish.

I don't think i have ever seen a complaint about a bad copy of a sigma 50-500. On the other hand, it is a $1000 lens and relatively few come off the line.

[kenyee]

Makes me wonder if I should wait for the new Sigma 24-70 or just continue w/ Tamron 28-75 roulette and try to find one w/o BF/FF issues :-P

My Sigma 17-70 has been sent to the factory twice for decentering issues as well...first time they replaced it w/ a new lens which had a minor decentering issue instead of the major issue the first one had...the second time, they claim they swapped the lens but kept the serial# (how any support organization can function that way, I have no clue?!??!). Not sure if my 3rd copy has any defects yet...I can't find the decentering issues unless I go on vacation and shoot a variety of focal lengths/distances...

[Tom S.]

It has been posited more than one place that sigma doesn't have so much a QC problem, as a distributor issue.

Sorry, but when a major user reports 30% of the lenses were bad out of the box, that is a quality issue - period!