http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga



For about a year now, we’ve had internal discussions at Lensrentals about carrying Sigma lenses. On the one hand, Sigma makes some excellent and unique lenses that are at a very attractive price. Some of them, like the 120-300 f2.8, 50-150 f2.8, and the 150-500 zooms are unique: there are no other lenses of similar aperture and focal length. And we know a lot of our customers are interested in trying these lenses to decide if they’re reasonable alternatives to the ‘brand names’ so we were one of the first rental houses to stock Sigma, and still stock more varieties and copies than anyone else.

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands. Our techs coined the phrase “Sigma’d” to describe any lens that didn’t function. When they did break, the repair turnaround time was, to be charitable, leisurely. We knew to buy a replacement, it would usually be several weeks and often a couple of months before we got the original copy returned repaired. But we knew a lot of you wanted to try these lenses and its our job to have what you want, so we stocked them.

In the last year, however, things have gotten much, much worse. One third of the Sigma 150-500 and 120-400 lenses we bought were defective out of the box and had to be exchanged. Several more broke during their first and second rentals. New copies of other Sigma lenses showed up with high defective rates out of the box. Repairs have become even slower and now even our routine in-warranty repairs are being refused and billed as ‘customer damage’, even though we’ve never rented them out, simply tested them.

Several weeks ago we placed warnings on a number of lenses that they were ‘high risk’ of failure. All but two of these were Sigma, despite the fact that Sigma is less than 7% of our lens inventory. When we looked at our actual numbers things were even more bleak: Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss. We weren’t losing a little bit of money anymore, we were losing a fair amount. More importantly, far more importantly, we had customers who rented lenses for important shoots and the lenses failed to work properly. Sigma was about 5% of our rentals but almost one-third of our customer complaints.

We aren’t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so many problems as to be unusable. We will not stock Sigma when there are better alternatives (70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 for example). We will continue to carry those Sigma lenses that are unique and where there aren’t more reliable options (120-300 f2.8 for example), at least for now, but we are not going to offer our “2 in 2” guarantee on Sigma products any longer. The reason is simple: we’re happy to buy a new copy for you to rent, but in the case of Sigma we may have to buy 2 or 3 new copies to get one that passes inspection. There isn’t time to do that in two weeks.

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.

Thank you,

Roger Cicala

When you use words like "defective", "stopped working", "broke" and "failure", what sorts of problems are you referring to specifically?

Also, I'm a bit confused at your numbers -- a 30% failure rate among 7% of your lenses is a 2.1% failure rate among your entire stock. A 5% failure rate of 93% of your lenses is 4.7% failure rate among your entire stock. So 93% of your lenses accounts for 70% of your total failures, which is bad, but is it really that bad? It just seems like even if you are having a high failure rate of your Sigmas, since you only stock them at 7%, is the cost to repairing them outweighing the cost to stock and rent them? If so, then you have a problem. If not, then you might need to look at some other issues. But, just looking at your numbers, it might be worth it to consider dumping the 5% of your sales on Sigmas to correct 30% of your total failure rate assuming the cost to fix these lenses is more than 5% of your revenue. Who knows?

Oh also, is the shipping carrier delivering your Sigma lenses different from the one delivering your other lenses, or, alternatively, are you having your Sigma lenses shipped to you but buying your other lenses locally? A lot of times a lens will leave the factory in fine condition but get jostled up in the shipping process.

I've had a few Sigma lenses in my day, one of which was purchased from the 'Bay and had to be sent back for an autofocus issue and I had a turnaround of less than 10 days. I'd be very concerned if a lens I sent off to be fixed took, as you said, "a couple of months" to be returned.

the OP doesn't own the company, he was just cut and pasting a notice from the website.

I really like my sigma lens. Never had any issues with it. I'm looking into getting a their 12-24mm F4_5-5_6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM lens this week. I've heard about Sigma autofocus issues, but I might have to look into this a little more.

I've had nothing but problems with Sigma lenses over the last 8 years or so - I'll never buy another one, at this point. Most recently a 70-200/2.8 had its AF chip fail after less than 6 months of very light use, and that was the second copy I owned after returning the first due to markedly-soft general focus out of the box. Their quality control just seems to be abysmal.

I have tried Sigma 4 times, 50mm1.4, 30mm 1.4, 50macro, 2nd 50macro. The only one that was usable was the 30. Tried to have the AF repaired in one of the 50macro and it took over 60 days. They were not pixel peeping bad, they were really bad. These were primes, they should be able to get them right. The worst part was the 30 was really good, my favorite lens for a while, made me try sigma more times than I should have. All my problems were AF related, the IQ was good.
Cy

I guess I must be the oddball ... I own three Sigma EX HSM lenses and haven't had a problem except one I caused when I dropped it, Sigma repaired it quickly for a reasonable fee and it keeps on ticking ... my fav is the 120-300 2.8 (first generation) .... it's an excellent tool. Don't get me wrong, I trust you all on your experiences ... I'm thankful I haven't had any such problems.

I also have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and have used it as my primary lens for years now. Twice I've droped it (My Fault) and sent it back to Sigma for repair. Both times had it back within the week fully repaired.

First time no questions asked, they said it was under warranty, second time was a few months later and this time I think they charged me under $100 and again I had it back in under a week.

I sent a lens into Canon CPS to be rebuilt and the claimed 3 day turn around was more like 3 weeks and total came to $1100

So I cant figure out what the OP is talking about?

I owned the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 for about three years and found it wasn't as sharp as I'd hoped, so I sold it. I've had a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 for over two years and it is very sharp. However, it failed at a shoot after one year of moderate usage and I shipped it back. After a six week turnaround (!) the PC board was replaced for about $125. It's still one of my favorite lenses but I'm looking at Tokina and Tamron for my next replacement lens (50-150mm or so range).
Best,
Andy

True Nathan. Did not notice that at first. Just putting out some of my concerns.

i have the 30mm f1.4.... and love it.

I've owned the 17-70, 24-70, 24-60 (twice now due to a poor decision to sell one) and the 150-500. I've been happy with all of mine although there are people who seem to have problems with the focusing being off at times with all of these lenses.

I think most photographers have owned at least one Sigma, but few have owned sufficient quantities of them to make a decision regarding overall product quality. Sounds as if Lensrentals has.

I own the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, 28-70 F2.8, 2x TC, and the 150 Macro

My 70-200 has been a good lens. The AF isn't the fastest (It is HSM), and one day the manual focus ring broke. 3 weeks in the shop (and a couple days wondering since they couldn't find the lens or the paperwork when I called about it). I'm now in the process of trying to sell it.

My 28-70 was sharp, now its not. The lens barrel also is loose and I don't trust it anymore. I don't consider it sharp enough to use in my work, so it sits on the shelf waiting for someone else to buy it.

My 2x TC literally fell apart on me during a shoot after using it for 8 months or so. I sent it in, got it back, and haven't used it in over a year.

My 150mm macro is the bright spot in my Sigma line. Its very sharp though the AF isn't the fastest either. But its macro, so its fine with me.

Oh, my tripod mount for the tripod fell apart also. I gotta call and try to get some parts for it. Wish me luck.

I've owned quite a few different sigma lenses.

50mm macro, 24-70 2.8, 4 copies of the sigma 70-200 2.8, a 18-50mm, a 100-300mm, and some others I cant remember at the moment.

I've always had an issue with each lens. (primarily focusing issues)

I did have a 70-200 2.8 though that I loved. Had to send it to be re chipped which took 3-4 weeks. When it came back it worked amazingly well and was my work horse for almost half a year.

I have recently sold it and will stick to canon/nikon lenses.