Sigma Lenses

[Headshotzx]

Not a continuation of the previous 3rd party lenses vs original brand lenses.

Here's a fact sheet / report from Lensrentals.com, a rental site in the US if I'm not wrong.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10

And a commentary on Sigma lenses:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

Seems like paying for the price of original / mainstream lenses are pretty worth it.

However, do understand that they are a lens rental company. That is, every time a customer wants a lens, it is shipped out, and then shipped back, so handling of lenses will vary a lot.

Discuss away!

Cheers,
Zexun

 

[attap seed]

my previous experience w 1 sigma and several tokina has been fine.

maybe i am not a critical user.

currently, i own the canon kit lens and tokina 12-24. equally happy w both.

actually, the relationship between orginal/3rd party can be pretty fuzzy.

things relating to OEM etc. also, some German lens are made in Japan, under license. and tokina's 28-70 f2.6-2.8, the orginal recipe is by another european lens maker. and tokina is an off-shoot of nikon, and now is closely related to pentax ( pls correct me if i made any mistakes in the above statements).

 

[felixcat8888]

I have the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 for the Pentax mount and am loving the pics taken with it.

 

[teebs]

Well if what the company said below is true then maybe there is some quality control issues at Sigma.

One third of the Sigma 150-500 and 120-400 lenses we bought were defective out of the box and had to be exchanged. New copies of other Sigma lenses showed up with high defective rates out of the box.

But for field failure, I would say that it really depends on the person renting the lens.

 

[ArcticFox]

There's generally nothing too much to discuss since everyone knows that third party lens are not that well made.

Anyway, how about third party such as, Tamron, they are not in the list. So, they are better made than a Canon 70-200? Of cos, there are many factors that vary.

 

[attap seed]

There's generally nothing too much to discuss since everyone knows that third party lens are not that well made.

dun agree.

cheap lens from both original and 3rd party are equally not as well made as the 'pro" series from both original and 3rd party.

'pro' series from 3rd party are (perhaps) not exactly as well made as that of original. but they are never meant to be, considering they are competing on a 3/4 to even 1/2 reduction in price.

having said that, i find my 12-24 tokina extremely well made.

i also find my kit lens, not as well made, but extremely versatile.

 

[Headshotzx]

There's generally nothing too much to discuss since everyone knows that third party lens are not that well made.

Anyway, how about third party such as, Tamron, they are not in the list. So, they are better made than a Canon 70-200? Of cos, there are many factors that vary.

That is a sweeping statement and very unfair. Lenses like Sigma 12-24 are very well built. Tamron's 90mm macro has image quality that equals or beats Canon's 100mm macro for less money.

Regarding the Canon 70-200, did you read the red print? They said that it's only 'high risk' because it's been borrowed so many times more than the other lenses that problems are 'bound to happen'.

It's amazing how the newest Sigma lenses are all in the high risk category for them.

 

[giantcanopy]

There's generally nothing too much to discuss since everyone knows that third party lens are not that well made.

My 28mm Schneider Super Angulon shift lens is better than nikon's own 28mm shift lens...

Lots of Zeiss enthusiasts as well

 

[ArcticFox]

My 28mm Schneider Super Angulon shift lens is better than nikon's own 28mm shift lens...

Lots of Zeiss enthusiasts as well

I was perhaps refering to Sigma, Tokina and Tamron only.

 

[Headshotzx]

I was perhaps refering to Sigma, Tokina and Tamron only.

Perhaps you are wrong to come up with that particular sweeping statement about (all) third party lenses aren't well made?

 

[entropy_h]

I was perhaps refering to Sigma, Tokina and Tamron only.

I disagree.

 

[kenkht]

The question is would you want to pay the same price for Sigma as Canon or Nikkor lenses? If yes, then it should be in that quality category. It all comes down to production cost. More money poured into production, the better quality it is (at least that's the theory). Now, 3rd party lenses are very very cheap compared to "pro" lenses of the same spec, so we shouldn't expect same quality. Of course, once in a while a real gem comes along in the guise of Tamron 90mm Macro.

AS the articles are from a rental company, wear and tear of lenses will be more pronounced and this is where we can see which are better made. BUT for most of us "careful" users, 3rd party lenses will serve us well if taken proper care (unless warranty issues).