Sigma Lens Quality

[pgbphotographytas]

Generally Sigma lenses are good quality and work well, I have heard of some issues with the longer telephotos (70-200mm F2.8 & 120-400mm) and sharpness / focusing issues. I have owned both of these lenses but have never had any issues with them (Pentax and Canon mount)

I am at the moment looking at a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro lens and wanted to know if they have the same quality control issues that the longer Sigma lenses have?

Paul

[I @ M]

Paul, all of the Sigma 'ex' grade lenses are built in much the same way from what I have seen.

And for what it is worth, I am really still waiting to see concrete proof that Sigma lenses have build quality issues on any greater scale than any OEM lens, be it Sony, Canon, Pentax, Nikon or whatever.

[pgbphotographytas]

Paul, all of the Sigma 'ex' grade lenses are built in much the same way from what I have seen.

And for what it is worth, I am really still waiting to see concrete proof that Sigma lenses have build quality issues on any greater scale than any OEM lens, be it Sony, Canon, Pentax, Nikon or whatever.

Thanks for that, I have only heard of issues with the larger telephoto models but bth of these I owned were great.

[I @ M]

And further for what it is worth, forget the 105 mm Sigma, have a look at the 150 mm instead. It is a truly impressive lens IMHO.

[pgbphotographytas]

And further for what it is worth, forget the 105 mm Sigma, have a look at the 150 mm instead. It is a truly impressive lens IMHO.

They don't make this in a Sony mount

[JM Tran]

I dont like how ppl rag on the quality control of Sigma, because they dont realize Sigma is the biggest lens manufacturer in the world! Pumping out lenses at a much higher number than Canon or Nikon etc yearly.

Higher production will always means a higher number of flawed products than those that make less. I know Canon have their share of faulty lenses, lets not even talk about the 1DMKIII debacle when it first came out.

I have always had faith in Sigma, and use it along with L and Nikkor lenses with confidence

[kiwi]

The 70-200 2.8 is softer than the Nikon equiavalent, as is the 120-300 and the 300

Ive had all 6

Now, it's only maybe 5%

Sony ?

I thought you currently used Nikon

Don't tell me you are changing brands again. Seriously.

[MarkChap]

Sony ?

I thought you currently used Nikon

Don't tell me you are changing brands again. Seriously.

Exactly the same I thought ??


Paul you said it yourself, both of the lenses you owned were fine, my 120-400, (whilst certainly no Canon 100-400L) is fine.
My fathers 17-70 appears to be fantastic little lens.

I would have very little reservations about buying Sigma lenses

[mrslodger]

Paul, you're a sony user? congrats, I see that there is a sigma 85mm soon to be released, keen to see the reviews on that one.

[Bill44]

Have a look at Thom Hogan's revue of the Sigma 30mm, he is not impressed.

[I @ M]

Have a look at Thom Hogan's revue of the Sigma 30mm, he is not impressed.

And your point is what Bill?

Does that mean because they make a lens that is less than perfect the whole range that they make is tainted?

If that is the case then there isn't a manufacturer of lenses on this planet that is worth considering.

They have all made lenses that were didn't match users expectations in some area.

[kiwi]

i'll chirp in twitter style that I think their QA process is much improved and largely a thing of the past and just as good as any

[davesmith]

Sony now hey? Unbelievable. If money is no object, and it seems it isn't, seek out a Minolta 100/2.8 macro.

Regarding Sigma itself, I have the 10-20 and 17-70 in Sony mount and can't really fault them.

[Bill44]

And your point is what Bill?

Does that mean because they make a lens that is less than perfect the whole range that they make is tainted?

If that is the case then there isn't a manufacturer of lenses on this planet that is worth considering.

They have all made lenses that were didn't match users expectations in some area.

Are you in the habit of putting words in peoples mouths?
I was merely pointing out that a respected reviewer has found a particular Sigma lens that he was not impressed with.

[I @ M]

No Bill, I am not putting words in peoples mouths.
This thread is about whether the Sigma macro lens suffered from any quality control issues allegedly as the longer telephoto lenses do.
I merely asked what your point was in your reply about the 30mm lens, which if I am correct is neither a macro or telephoto lens.
My point is that some people are all too quick to point out a fault or shortcoming in a product at each and every opportunity that they can
You posted about a respected reviewer not liking a particular lens that wasn't even part of the original posters question. I am sure that I can find plenty of reviews by respected reviewers on many lenses that aren't part of the original posters question as well.

And my point would be?

[Bill44]

No Bill, I am not putting words in peoples mouths.
This thread is about whether the Sigma macro lens suffered from any quality control issues allegedly as the longer telephoto lenses do.
I merely asked what your point was in your reply about the 30mm lens, which if I am correct is neither a macro or telephoto lens.
My point is that some people are all too quick to point out a fault or shortcoming in a product at each and every opportunity that they can
You posted about a respected reviewer not liking a particular lens that wasn't even part of the original posters question. I am sure that I can find plenty of reviews by respected reviewers on many lenses that aren't part of the original posters question as well.

And my point would be?

Well one poster said that three Sigma lenses were softer than the Nikon equivalent, and they weren't the lens under discussion. No comment was made by you.

Several posters praised lenses that were not the lens under discussion. Apparently that was OK by you.

I commented on a lens that was not under discussion. That was obviously not OK by you.

So just what is your point?

[ricktas]

I am at the moment looking at a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro lens and wanted to know if they have the same quality control issues that the longer Sigma lenses have?

Well one poster said that three Sigma lenses were softer than the Nikon equivalent, and they weren't the lens under discussion. No comment was made by you.

Several posters praised lenses that were not the lens under discussion. Apparently that was OK by you.

I commented on a lens that was not under discussion. That was obviously not OK by you.

So just what is your point?

Cause the OP asked about longer telephoto lenses and a macro lens, the other replies were about longer lenses and comparisons of quality control to the Sigma ones. I don't see how the 30mm is either a tele lens or a macro?

[Bill44]

I get the picture, Bye Bye.

[I @ M]

Bill, I tend to think that the lenses referred to as being softer than the Nikon equivalent were reasonably described by the term 'longer telephoto lenses' in the original post.
Paul clearly asked about alleged softness and focus issues with longer telephoto lenses and whether the macro he was considering would suffer from the same alleged problems.
Kiwi responded with a valid observation that he had owned some of the Sigma longer telephoto lenses, one of which is directly mentioned in the OP, and that he had found them to be softer than the Nikon equivalent. I think that is a very fair and valid response to a question.

My point is --- you have brought up a lens that I assume that you have not personally had any experience with, does not come within a bull's roar of any of the lenses under discussion and from that you appear to be very much like so many other people on the net that like to point out flaws in a particular product and tar all the products from a manufacturer with the same brush.

[kiwi]

There are two things here

Sigmas purported general qa issue, which I think is largely historical

Performance of specific lenses

I'll add to my comments that I've also owned a sigma 180 macro which i think was very sharp and a sigma 50-150 that was ordinary at 2.8

I do think at f/4+ that all the sigmas i had were as practically sharp as the exotic nikons I know have, I think you pay extra for the equivalent sharpness at 2.8.

Is saying this if budget was a major concern I had and I would have no reservations in sigma at all

Sure, you might get a lemon, buts that's life, get a refund or an exchange


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk