Lens rental co. article on Sigma lens quality

[rwzeitgeist]

There's a very interesting article titled "The Sigma Saga" on the LensRentals.com web site discussing their negative experience with Sigma's lens quality control and repair service. The article, which appeared about a month ago, details what LensRentals.com sees as a serious decline in the quality of Sigma lenses over the past 12 months, to the point they have stopped renting Sigmas that overlap other manufacturer's focal lengths.

If you're considering a lens purchase, the article is well worth reading.

I encountered a reference to the above article in today's Lloyd Chambers blog entry.

Bob

[CaptainTom]

That's a pretty frank article from someone who doesn't seem to have a special axe to grind. They go through a lot of Sigma lenses and should be a good barometer of Sigma quality. Maybe good and Sigma shouldn't be used in the same sentence ??

[DeannaD]

Don't tell the guys on the sports forum who use Sigma lenses all the time! They're getting some awesome shots with those 'inferior' lenses.

[MRCPix]

I totally agree with them I bought a 70-200 f2.8 for sports and the autofocus went out the first time I used. I sent it to sigma and it took 5 weeks to get it back so I rented a canon version of that lens and when I got the sigma back I got rid of it. I won't buy sigma not worth it to me.

[Riff Raff]

Originally Posted by DeannaD

They're getting some awesome shots with those 'inferior' lenses.

They said nothing at all about quality of photos. They're just saying that the reliability (and proportion of lenses not working new out of the box) is significantly worse than any other lens manufacturer. And they're one of the few people that can accurately gauge this with a large enough sample of lenses.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by Riff Raff

They said nothing at all about quality of photos. They're just saying that the reliability (and proportion of lenses not working new out of the box) is significantly worse than any other lens manufacturer. And they're one of the few people that can accurately gauge this with a large enough sample of lenses.

I have to say that in the last year I've bought two Sigma lenses (new), one high quality, one just so-so and both had to go back to Sigma, straight out of the box, to be recalibrated. One came back no better and the second so much improved I'd swear they gave me a new lens.

In both cases the repairs took what I would consider to be a very long time.

Very sad. My days buying Sigma are over for now.

Joe

[RightAngle]

wow, I'm glad I lucked out. I bought the 15mm sigma a while back and have had no problems with it and really like it. Its the only Sigma glass I own though and it kind of looks like it will stay that way.

[alamoshutterbug]

I guess I got lucky on my sigma purchases. I own the 50mm macro, the 15mm fisheye, and the 28-70 2.8-4. They all focus fine and the two primes are very sharp across the image. But yes, this article does make one think twice about buying more sigma gear.

And here I was seriously considering trying out their 12-24. It may not be worth the trouble.

[CaptainTom]

They did make it clear that Sigma QC has deteriorated rapidly and recently.
Those older Sigma lenses are still taking good images. I have an 8mm eye that works just great. It's a few years old, and possibly their QC was better.

[alamoshutterbug]

Ahh, good point Tom, my three lenses from them are all 4+ years old, from my film days.

[phillip ino]

ALL my Sigma lenses, old and new, have performed as they should. Two of the most used lenses in my kit are new Sigmas. My favorite DX lens was a new Sigma. I don't see what the issue is. All of the lens makers have QC issues if you ask me...

[Joe_Lorenzini]

I agree that this lack of quality is a recent issue. I used to have a Sigma 17-35mm that was tack sharp and a great lens

My complaint with the Sigma 18-200 lens I bought is that brand new, first time out of the box, mounted on a D3 with no known focusing issues this lens delivered images so bad there was no single point in the photo where a focus area was visible. It wasn't just a little bad, it was completely unusable (and I have the images to prove it backed up by Sigma's repair service notes).

My 30/1.4 at least provided images that were sharp it just wasn't consistent (a known issue at time of release and again repaired by Sigma).

I've gotten a bad lens from Nikon and Tamron in the past but those were at least usable on some level. And I'll note that both were repaired and sent back in half the time Sigma takes...

I do hope they figure it out. I like having choices.

Joe

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by phillip ino

ALL my Sigma lenses, old and new, have performed as they should. Two of the most used lenses in my kit are new Sigmas. My favorite DX lens was a new Sigma. I don't see what the issue is. All of the lens makers have QC issues if you ask me...

I'm not interested in starting an argument, but did you actually read the report ?

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by DeannaD

Don't tell the guys on the sports forum who use Sigma lenses all the time! They're getting some awesome shots with those 'inferior' lenses.

I'm one of those guys. My Sigma 120-300 doesn't hold a candle to my Nikkor glass. I mean, it's not even close in sharpness, contrast, and to some extent, focusing speed. I know it shouldn't be the case, but I'd even say it focuses less accurately most of the time, as well.

I wish it were a great lens, but it's not. I'd call it "adequate", and that's about it.

[Dobick]

from the article

We’ll monitor the situation and hope that someday soon Sigma gets their quality control back to “below average” from its current “worse than imaginable” and we can stock them like the other lenses in our lineup.

Wow! Although it sounds deserved, that it harsh!