Sigma Lens.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ShropshireLad

ShropshireLad

Suspended / Banned
Messages
476
Name
Lew
Edit My Images
Yes
On Monday (7/Feb) I Sent my Sigma 24-105mm f4 Art lens into Sigma service (under it's 3 year Guarantee period) today Saturday (12th Feb) it just been delivered back fully working again ... fantastic turnaround in only 5 days.
I am very very very impressed with their professionalism in communication and service, and have no problem with recommending them highly.

Paul
 
I had the Canon 24-105mm f4 L previously (untill I dropped it in the sea ..lol) and found this Sigma art version actually sharper, and like the advantage of being able to tweek it to my pref via the dock.
sk66 said:
I've always been pleased with them... but there is the occasional firmware/compatibility issue.
Click to expand...
 
Stories like this is why I bought Zeiss Otus. Not even 3 years old and already malfufnctoning??
 
taxboy said:
Things can go wrong with mechanical objects. I think the issue is how are you dealt with if they do. In this case I think the OP has received excellent customer service
Click to expand...
Trust people like Winslowe to only see the bad in things .....
It's easy to take an object off the shelf, stick a stamp on it and send it off to a customer ... I judge a product/company by how well they do to put things right when there is a problem ....
Sigma you did well.
 
Cynical meaning ... concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them.
 
Nod said:
Because it seems to have a problem spelling.
Click to expand...
That was me typing too fast and failing to spell check. Pretty dumb to suggest it had anything to do with the keyboard!
 
So you are commenting (at best) on second hand experience?
 
Winslowe said:
Stories like this is why I bought Zeiss Otus. Not even 3 years old and already malfufnctoning??
Click to expand...

As already said anything mechanical can go wrong Sigma have a good reputation
I’ve had my Sigma 105 macro lens since 2006 and has been heavily used but still produces excellent sharp images
 
LCPete said:
As already said anything mechanical can go wrong Sigma have a good reputation
Click to expand...
They and Tamron have both been successful because they produce a good range of useful lenses at very reasonable prices.

Having used several Sigma products, mostly ultrawides, I'm aware that they are not always reliable but they measure up well in the price/performance stakes . Snide comments from someone who, by their own admission, has not used these items, aren't really helpfull to any discussion.

Some commercially scanned pictures taken through a Sigma 17~35 lens onto Kodacolor film...

Eos5_56780022.JPG
Eos5_56610023.JPG
Eos5_56980006.JPG
 
I also have to say that the Art series is not comparable to what Sigma has produced in the long past. I have the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 for my APS-C camera that I use in the mountains, which produced excellent images until last year. Now it sometimes fails to autofocus. I have seen that the AF module is quite a weak design. Unfortunately there is no updated version of this lens and there never will be, at least not for DSLR.

But I will never buy an Otus 55 mm as long as the Simga Art f/1.4 50 mm is available. Optically there is hardly any difference and the Otus has no autofocus, as far as I know. And you can buy 5-6 of these Sigma lenses for the same money that an Otus costs, crazy.

But it was about a 24-105 mm anyway and there a 55 mm lens, is not a serious alternative anyway.

Personally, I stick to 24-70 mm f/2.8. This zoom range is obviously easier to realise with very good image quality at the same time. I never miss the range between 70 and 105. I tend to use the wide-angle range.
 
lemo said:
I also have to say that the Art series is not comparable to what Sigma has produced in the long past.
Click to expand...
I once owned two of the early Art series for M43: the 30mm and 60mm. They did the job but I found them rather bland. I've just got too used to zooms, I guess! :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
They and Tamron have both been successful because they produce a good range of useful lenses at very reasonable prices.

Having used several Sigma products, mostly ultrawides, I'm aware that they are not always reliable but they measure up well in the price/performance stakes . Snide comments from someone who, by their own admission, has not used these items, aren't really helpfull to any discussion.

Some commercially scanned pictures taken through a Sigma 17~35 lens onto Kodacolor film...

View attachment 345538
View attachment 345539
View attachment 345540
Click to expand...
Obviously this post is aimed at me, but I am at a loss as to why you would post these pictures supposed to show Sigma's optical quality when my only complaint was their history of poor mechanical quality, which has been mentioned more than once in this thread. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I chose Zeiss due to Sigma's well documented mechanical failures.
 
Comparing Zeiss Otus @ ££££££ with a Sigma @ ££ Really not much use !
I have several Sigma lenses and am entirely happy with there performance for ££ - I am also pleased to hear that should something go wrong, Sigma respond quickly and efficiently.
I am afraid short of a lottery win Zeiss Otus are not in my price range (no matter how good they may be).

PS - I have a Dacia Duster an its not as good or reliable as my Aston Martin ! ;)
 
lemo said:
I also have to say that the Art series is not comparable to what Sigma has produced in the long past. I have the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 for my APS-C camera that I use in the mountains, which produced excellent images until last year. Now it sometimes fails to autofocus. I have seen that the AF module is quite a weak design. Unfortunately there is no updated version of this lens and there never will be, at least not for DSLR.

But I will never buy an Otus 55 mm as long as the Simga Art f/1.4 50 mm is available. Optically there is hardly any difference and the Otus has no autofocus, as far as I know. And you can buy 5-6 of these Sigma lenses for the same money that an Otus costs, crazy.

But it was about a 24-105 mm anyway and there a 55 mm lens, is not a serious alternative anyway.

Personally, I stick to 24-70 mm f/2.8. This zoom range is obviously easier to realise with very good image quality at the same time. I never miss the range between 70 and 105. I tend to use the wide-angle range.
Click to expand...
How old is your 17-50mm ..... may it still be under waranty.?
 
@Winslowe ... Can you post some pics in this thread with your Zeiss lens for us to see?
 
ShropshireLad said:
How old is your 17-50mm ..... may it still be under waranty.?
Click to expand...
I bought it new in March 2016, so no more warranty. It would be no pain to buy another one that could last another 6 years, but this lens is no longer available. There is no successor for APS-C DSLR.
I also still have a Canon 17-55 f/2.8, but it's a bit decentred and bigger than the Sigma. But I will probably get this one repaired.
 
Just had a look at the price of the 55mm Zeiss and it cost more than what is in my bag :eek:

I had a 50mm f1.4 Sigma art, reluctantly sold, but I cannot imagine I would see a £2600 difference in image quality ;) side by side
 
DemiLion said:
I'd also ask, why pay almost four grand for a lens that doesn't even autofocus?
Click to expand...
Fewer parts that can break. No autofocus and also no mechanism for zooming. That has to be worth something.

Zooming by foot is also good for your health. Especially if you want to replace a wide-angle shot in the landscape.
 
Nod said:
Not always.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Even for people without mobility problems this is true. Sometimes, you just can't approach more closely because there's a river between you and the subject. Sometimes you can't retreat because there's a wall behind. In any case, very few people can tell the difference between images from one lens or another.

:tumbleweed:
 
DemiLion said:
Although I fail to see what a zoom lens has to do with autofocus.
Click to expand...
The Subject of this thread, the 24-105 mm has everything: Zoom, AF and IS, the Otus has none of that.

But I can see that sarcasm has to be specially labelled as such. According to the motto: I can take a joke when it is explained to me. :)
 
lemo said:
Zooming by foot is also good for your health.
Click to expand...
Well ….
It doesn’t work does it?
It’s a physical impossibility, the reason we have different focal lengths isn’t just so we can be at different distances, it’s that the ratio of distance to subject v environment creates different images.

The difference between photography and painting is that we can choose the focal length of the view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top