gpsphoto wrote:
Is going to the actual store with your body and trying multiple lenses there better/worse/same as ordering three online?
+1
It's exactly the same, the only difference is these "rejects" wouldn't have to go through the shipping process of being dropped or kicked around by say the UPS driver.
jvarszegi wrote:
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.
To purchase a single product to use with the intent to return is essentially renting the lens for free and would be considered return fraud BUT purchasing multiple copies of a product to test with the intent to keep one is not at all the same. If it happens that none of the purchased copies are up to the buyers standards they do have the right to return or exchange the said product as long as they are within a certain time period. What people fail to consider is that some people cannot afford to waste time or money shipping products back and forth. If it wasn't for poor QC and or shipping methods then ordering one item with complete faith that it will be fully functioning wouldn't be an issue--unfortunately for us, as the consumer, it is an issue.
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.
You don't play with fire and then blame the fire for being hot when you get burnt. Just don't play with fire. If the lens has a bad reputation, don't buy it, simple isn't it? By not buying the lens, it'll send the same message to the manufacturer without causing grief to the retailers. Two wrongs don't make a right mate.
Maybe if Richard didn't buy them in the first place, knowing the bad reputation and all, maybe those lenses could've ended up in the hands of some non pixel peepers that find them perfectly acceptable.
I have voiced my opinion before on the Sigma vs the L, 1.4, OM, etc. I love it, in case you hadn't heard.
First one I bought, first one I used, first Sigma I bought new. I use it and the 135 ONLY when shooting engagements and it compares with 135 just fine. Incredible colors, and simply solid consistency of focus, vs. the Canon 1.2L. Thats why I sold it.
Of course I have NEVER returned a lens or body when a issue is reported. First 1D3 was stellar, same with the many lenses I use. What did you all do in your past lives to get such Karma?
n0b0 wrote:
If the lens has a bad reputation, don't buy it, simple isn't it?
It is completely up to the individual to give the lens a go or not. For those who received good copies they have nothing but great things to say about it. So no, its not simple.
n0b0 wrote:
Maybe if Richard didn't buy them in the first place, knowing the bad reputation and all, maybe those lenses could've ended up in the hands of some non pixel peepers that find them perfectly acceptable.
Who's to say they wont still?
Anyway, I won't argue my position on the subject any further than I already have. Some will have their opinions and I'll have mine. And so it goes...
M Vers wrote:
It is completely up to the individual to give the lens a go or not. For those who received good copies they have nothing but great things to say about it. So no, its not simple.
Well then those individuals are the ones who should bear the risk, without causing grief to the retailer.
M Vers wrote:
Who's to say they wont still?
Well noone can say, but the possibility was there... before they were paid for and returned by some pixel peeper who had no intention of buying them in the first place.
NO matter what excuses people come up with, it's just ethically wrong. Would you want to do business with this guy if you were the reseller? If the OP wanted to test or compare the lens to his canon then he should have borrowed, or rented it. Buying 1 copy to test is bad enough, but 3? There is no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Richard Nye wrote:
I'm pretty sure one of the lenses I received was returned because the packaging was different. Are you sure all returned lenses get refurbed? That doesn't make sense if the lens looks and is packaged like new.
Makes sense to me no one wants to pay for a brand new lens that has been tested by a customer. After you have done your testing the lens is no longer new and I know the big stores do not sell them and send them back to the manufacture.
I'm not sure if they do this everywhere, but at Fry's electronics, even if you return the item unopened, they have to open to check the merchandise and resell it as an open boxed item.
Let me tell you a little more about where I stand on this and what my intensions were.
First, comparing what I did to buying and wearing clothes with the intent to return them, or buying a lens, using it for an event and then returning it is nonsense. It is not the same. I bought 3 lenses because of the reputation for copy to copy variation. I have NEVER done that before, and I have NEVER returned a lens or camera before, and I've never needed to. I felt compelled to buy 3 lenses this time because of the reputation of that particular lens. For those of you that say I shouldn't have bought the lens if it had a poor reputation for consistency, that's your opinion. I was impressed with what some people said about the lens, and I want it to work out providing the lens performs well.
A friend of mine buys backpacking gear from a large, on-line retailer. They not only have no stocking fee, they pay the shipping on returns. My friend will order 3 pair of boots, not knowing which pair will fit best. Honestly, I think that's a great idea. How else is someone going to know which boot fits? If the fit isn't acceptable for any of the 3, he sends them all back. He could go to REI, have the staff spend time fitting him, and then leave only to order it on-line, but he doesn't. If the retailer is going to sell goods whose performance can only be judged by use, then the retailer must expect the product to be lightly used and possibly returned.
By the way, nobody would be able to tell one of my returned lenses from a new one. I guess some people will examine a new lens for finger prints and do a DNA test, but whether a lens has been touched by another human (outside of the factory) isn't important to most people. Getting a lens that functions well, is.
And if you think I'm a difficult, picky customer, please read my feedback on B&S.
Richard Nye wrote:
Let me tell you a little more about where I stand on this and what my intensions were.
First, comparing what I did to buying and wearing clothes with the intent to return them, or buying a lens, using it for an event and then returning it is nonsense. It is not the same. I bought 3 lenses because of the reputation for copy to copy variation. I have NEVER done that before, and I have NEVER returned a lens or camera before, and I've never needed to. I felt compelled to buy 3 lenses this time because of the reputation of that particular lens. For those of you that say I shouldn't have bought the lens if it had a poor reputation for consistency, that's your opinion. I was impressed with what some people said about the lens, and I want it to work out providing the lens performs well.
A friend of mine buys backpacking gear from a large, on-line retailer. They not only have no stocking fee, they pay the shipping on returns. My friend will order 3 pair of boots, not knowing which pair will fit best. Honestly, I think that's a great idea. How else is someone going to know which boot fits? If the fit isn't acceptable for any of the 3, he sends them all back. He could go to REI, have the staff spend time fitting him, and then leave only to order it on-line, but he doesn't. If the retailer is going to sell goods whose performance can only be judged by use, then the retailer must expect the product to be lightly used and possibly returned.
By the way, nobody would be able to tell one of my returned lenses from a new one. I guess some people will examine a new lens for finger prints and do a DNA test, but whether a lens has been touched by another human (outside of the factory) isn't important to most people. Getting a lens that functions well, is.
And if you think I'm a difficult, picky customer, please read my feedback on B&S.
Sorry I can spot a lens that has been opened easily no matter how careful you put it back in the box. No matter what you think it's not right and it does cost the shop that is taking them back. They will have to pay shipping for the return to Canon or where ever they are sending them. So if you return two lenses in your trial it will cost them for shipping two back to Sigma they also have to pay the people who do the handling of the returns it all cost.
M Vers wrote:
To purchase a single product to use with the intent to return is essentially renting the lens for free and would be considered return fraud BUT purchasing multiple copies of a product to test with the intent to keep one is not at all the same.
Of course it is. The OP bought three lenses, intending to return at least two. IMHO this is at least a doubly bad case of return fraud compared to the scenario where a person "rents" just one lens.
Also, notice what actually happened here. He verified that all of the copies focused correctly, albeit with different levels of microadjustment; then, after using all three, he returned all three. And he didn't just verify that they worked; he went out and took some landscape photos to do a comparison with another brand of lens.
This is simply not what return policies are for. But heck, it sounds like a hell of a way to start a lens-review site, eh? Who needs donated copies? Watch out, photozone!
Not only did the OP convert three new to three used lenses-- buying none in the end despite the fact that all three worked-- he at least deprived the retailer of three lenses from their inventory while he ran the tests, and may have caused them to be sent back to Sigma (I don't know how the retailer handles such returns). And who pays for the return shipping?
Call me crazy, but I would rather have actually new merchandise rather than merchandise that's been pawed over by cherry-pickers and then returned at everyone else's expense.
terenceng wrote:
Normal people would go to the store, tried it out and either buy it at the store or go online.
I don't like buying return item, so I won't do what you did...
I wanted to do that, but the nearest store (according to Sigma's website) is 50 miles away. And that's 50 miles of bumper to bumper traffic. Then I would have needed to take the CF card home to look at it. Testing lenses in the store sounds good on paper, but is more difficult in practice.
Richard Nye wrote:
I wanted to do that, but the nearest store (according to Sigma's website) is 50 miles away. And that's 50 miles of bumper to bumper traffic. Then I would have needed to take the CF card home to look at it. Testing lenses in the store sounds good on paper, but is more difficult in practice.
You can throw up excuse after excuse to justify this...but in the end, it is just wrong.
Eyebrock: obviously you don't have an opinion of your own so why even bother?
Yes, it's a free market, but it doesn't mean you should have to uncessarily abuse it. It just takes common sense to realize what OP did was wrong, selfish, and inconsiderate. If everyone does what Richard did, there wouldn't be a free market left.
supra28 wrote:
Eyebrock: obviously you don't have an opinion of your own so why even bother?
Yes, it's a free market, but it doesn't mean you should have to uncessarily abuse it. It just takes common sense to realize what OP did was wrong, selfish, and inconsiderate. If everyone does what Richard did, there wouldn't be a free market left.
Supra, I have an opinion and I'm not rude either. If Sigma made decent lenses nobody would be doing this. End ex.
