A friend of mine just got a Sigma 50 1.4 and told me that maybe something was wrong with the AF (He never heard of any issues in advance). Another photographer tried it and confirmed that the AF motor seemed almost unable to move the focus mechanism. Bummer
n0b0 wrote:
I'm not upset about someone buying 3 copies of the same lens, I just find it funny how inconsistent people's sense of moral is in this place.
n0b0, I totally agree with you regarding people's morals at times. To me, it really does not matter if you are dealing with the big all mighty corporations or individual people...if you have no intent on keeping a product, don't purchase it in the first place.
When I sell items on the B&S board, I will offer their money returned if they don't find the camera / lens to their satisfaction...but I wholely trust they have total intent in keeping the item unless they are really not satisfied with it. I'd be pissed off if they only purchased the item just to try it out with the intent of returning it to me all along.
I don't see how dealing with me or a corporation or a mom & pop camera store is any different when it comes to these issues.
wickerprints wrote:
It's called a free market, folks. It's not illegal to do these kinds of things. You think the corporations really suffer from the puny efforts of individual consumers? They have a lot of power and control, and to suggest that we have to play by some kind of unspoken moral code when it comes to economic decisions is hogwash.
In fact, buying more than one copy of a product with the intent to return all but the best is a completely rational thing to do. That's why some retailers have a restocking fee. Those who do not, in turn make a rational business decision to waive it because having one causes more consumer dissatisfaction and lost business than what would be saved in costs.
And yes, those costs do get passed on at some point. It all gets back to the end consumers eventually, and this is the real reason why some of you are upset. You're not upset because you feel like retailers or corporations are being harmed by the calculated decisions of a select few who can afford to buy multiple copies. You're upset because you're not exploiting the system in the same way, thereby placing you at a slight disadvantage--one that is budget-dependent, because not everyone has the ability to fund multiple purchases of certain items, even if only on a temporary basis.
Few are those who can afford to buy 3 copies of, say, the EF 800/5.6L IS. But you know what? Nobody would pull a stunt like that because at that price point, Canon has their s*** together and you would be insane to expect a sub-par copy.
And consider what's happening on the manufacturer's end. There are costs associated with increasing QC. The manufacturer makes a rational economic decision where they maximize profit at a certain QC level--too lax, and the cost of excessive returns and repairs outweighs any savings; too high, and your stuff doesn't get returned but you are paying out the nose to maintain that quality. When consumers increase the return rate, they are indirectly pressuring the manufacturer to improve QC. This may end up decreasing profit margins or increasing pricing, each with its own consequences.
Same thing happens with brick-and-mortar shops. If you cannot compete with online stores because you have to price your items higher due to greater overhead, that's too bad. The consumer is making a purely rational choice to investigate the item in person and then buy online. It is not their responsibility to play nice in what is fundamentally a competition between retailers. The brick-and-mortar shop has to demonstrate value in a way that extends beyond price alone.
It is incredibly arrogant to attempt to guilt people into doing things according to some personally held, unwritten moral economic code. Companies have absolutely NO problem shafting YOU and they do it every single day. They serve their best interests and that is exactly how the game works. They know some of you are clever enough to exploit loopholes in the system to maximize their leverage. That behavior is already factored into their bottom line. If they really cared about closing those loopholes, then they could do so quite trivially. Sigma obviously finds their present return rates acceptable because if they didn't, they would have done something about it by now. It is an automatically equilibrium-seeking process....Show more →
Wow, this was intended to be a thread about the Sigma 50 1.4 vs the Canon 50 1.4, but......
I'll bet if you call the retailer and tell him you were concerned about the reputation the lens has for copy to copy variation, and you told him you were buying 3 with the intent to return 2, they would sell them to you in a heartbeat.
Richard Nye wrote:
Wow, this was intended to be a thread about the Sigma 50 1.4 vs the Canon 50 1.4, but......
I'll bet if you call the retailer and tell him you were concerned about the reputation the lens has for copy to copy variation, and you told him you were buying 3 with the intent to return 2, they would sell them to you in a heartbeat.
If you tell them that, I'm willing to take a punt that you'll be asked for a restocking fee.
Richard Nye wrote:
I'll bet if you call the retailer and tell him you were concerned about the reputation the lens has for copy to copy variation, and you told him you were buying 3 with the intent to return 2, they would sell them to you in a heartbeat.
But then you would have an agreement between both parties.
The retailer would be not only well aware of the buyer's intentions but would also give his agreement.
Not exactly the same.
Richard Nye wrote:
And then for grins I put the Canon 50 1.4 on the tripod and tested it out. When I saw the files I couldn't believe my eyes! It performed much better than the Sigma, in the center, at the edges and corners, from wide open to stopped down.
Your test confirms slrgear test results. Your EF50 copy must be better than the rest at wide open. From f2.8 and beyond, EF50 chart shown to be better than sigma's
supra28 wrote:
... Does Sigma have it advertised somewhere a satisfaction money back guaruntee?
Yes, its implicit. At least in much of europe it is - if a product doesn't work as advertised the law explicitly says you can demand that they make it do so. If they can't then you get a refund. I know US law is rather less customer friendly, but surely this must also apply there.
fraga wrote:
Canon also has somewhat dubious QC.
Is Sigma worse? Yes. But canon is far from being perfect.
I've had my share of bad canon lenses (L, by the way).
This applies to ALL manufacturers. If a specific product is known to have issues, there is nothing wrong with buying multiple copies at the same time to find a good one.
davenfl wrote:
Well Matt you and I generally don't have anything but a friendly relationship but here we agree to disagree. I know you seemed to have some issues with the Sigma 50. My experience is quite to the contrary, bought 2 over a 15 month timeframe, 1 for Canon and 1 for Nikon, both perfect. The issue here is your thinking it is alright to buy 3 copies of something knowing you only intend to keep one. That is right in your book because, your words, they are crap. Interesting that all three of the OP's copies were acceptable and operated with specs. He didn't like them compared to the Canon 1.4 but they were,per his analysis, OK, he just like the Canon better. I don't think what he did was honest or fair. I don't care that Sigma is a big company, Canon is a bigger company and they F--Ked me over with the damn 1D3 big time. Bought 4 copies at once for my business and they were all shit. That doesn't mean that I am trying to find a way to kill Canon. Being honest and fair is how I deal with people including companies. If you have an issue with a company don't buy their products, plain and simple. It is not in the interest of anyone to do what was done here. As to the issue of "open box" products it is the right and fair thing to do for retailer not to sell "open box" products as new. I don't want them and you cannot tell me you want them, they are used goods and should be treated as such. So we disagree here strongly my friend, what was done here is not right in my opinion. We will not always agree but as long as the discussion is keep at a civil and professional level I am a happy man.
Dave, I don't doubt your experience or the experiences of others--all I know is I went through a lot of unnecessary bull shit with the lens as did many others. The idea here is to look out for yourself and play it safe against a corporation who, more than likely, couldn't care less how many you buy and return. If it comes down to agreeing to disagree that is OK with me--you're still a good guy
But I would also say that from a retailers point of view, it's just not fair.
It's not their fault.
And if one has a small shop, I believe this practice could be quite detrimental to the business.
fraga wrote:
M Vers, I understand what you are saying.
But I would also say that from a retailers point of view, it's just not fair.
It's not their fault.
And if one has a small shop, I believe this practice could be quite detrimental to the business.
They know full what they are getting into when handling such products and I'm sure they keep track of the number of times a specific product is purchased and returned. If anyone is to blame its the manufacturer, not the consumer.
M Vers wrote:
This applies to ALL manufacturers. If a specific product is known to have issues, there is nothing wrong with buying multiple copies at the same time to find a good one.
Buying multiple copies of a product with the intend to cherry pick the best copy and return the rest at best, or just to test your curiosity with little intend of keeping any at worst, is really stretching customer oriented consumer laws and hardly more moral than questionable QC.
You wouldn't get very far with such behaviour with dutch retailers though, as our return policies are a little more strict than yours.
Next buyer will get what Richard N. "has played" with...
rhorta wrote:
Buying multiple copies of a product with the intend to cherry pick the best copy and return the rest at best, or just to test your curiosity with little intend of keeping any at worst, is really stretching customer oriented consumer laws and hardly more moral than questionable QC.
You wouldn't get very far with such behaviour with dutch retailers though, as our return policies are a little more strict than yours.
Next buyer will get what Richard N. "has played" with...
Ruy
Even if Richard had purchased and returned/exchanged each lens separately some one would have eventually gotten a lens Richard "has played with", assuming, of course, the lens(es) happened to be placed back on the shelf. Again, if a product's reputation is as such I will not blame the consumer for being extra careful--I will blame the manufacturer. If a company like Sigma decides to pay closer attention to its QC then they themselves and retailers wouldn't have to be subjected to such processes. In the end, its most unfortunate for retailers and consumers and not the manufacturer.
IIRC this is called return fraud in the retail business. To buy a lens with the intention of returning it is essentially the same as renting a lens for free. It's abuse of a retailer's return policy IMHO.
M Vers wrote:
[Even if Richard had purchased and returned/exchanged each lens separately some one would have eventually gotten a lens Richard "has played with", assuming, of course, the lens(es) happened to be placed back on the shelf. Again, if a product's reputation is as such I will not blame the consumer for being extra careful--I will blame the manufacturer. If a company like Sigma decides to pay closer attention to its QC then they themselves and retailers wouldn't have to be subjected to such processes. In the end, its most unfortunate for retailers and consumers and not the manufacturer.
If you order three lenses in succession, it is because the first two didn't come up to expectation (were faulty).
If you order three in a row to test, chances are that all three are acceptable thereby you've needlessly "tested" two of them.
I'd be pissed as a retailer if people were "testing" gear this way.
The OP actually tried to cherry pick and came to the conclusion that his EF 50 is good enough...
What if all consumers go by that method, you wouldn't be able to get a really new product.
I don't mind if I know a product was opened in a shop, I do mind if people have been playing with it at home.
