![]() ![]() OTOH it may be that their std charge for a recalibration and freight to/from Japan is £127 and the second amount is simply to cover the difference between that and the initial diagnosis. I think either of these opens up a whole different issue. One thing I'd be doing if I were the OP is to talk with Sigma to find out why I might have been charged twice to solve one problem, and whether they have physically charged the second amount to your card without prior approval. The OP has not been quick enough to report the matter to Sigma and product quality aside, he has to take ( and I think is taking ) a large amount of the resposibility for this situation. ![]() They give a period of time for the owner to notice and act upon any faults that occurred in manufacture and I'm pretty sure that even if he could demonstrate conclusively using photographs that the problem existed within warranty, that the OP's failure to complain or return the lens in that period means that the bet is off if Sigma want it to be. If you don't return the lens within a warranty period its becoming more difficult to credibly claim that it was always unsatisfactory. I think there's a big difference between what Sigma have to do and what they have the opportunity to do. May or may not be true, but it just goes to show how a couple of duff products produces antipathy. I recall having two poor quality Sigma lenses in the 1990's and in my mind I see them as a company whose sole interest is to undercut on price and still make a healthy profit. Given the theory that all things in the cosmos balance out in the end, maybe that was the positive moment which balances your Sigma lens problem. ![]() I took it back to an Olympus dealer who after a few weeks came back to me with a NEW Olympus Trip 35 as the original was clearly a manufacturing fault. It had never worked properly and always produced out of focus images. I once was given an elderly original Olympus Trip 35 (remember them?) by someone who had never managed to get a decent shot out of it. As such I think you should at least try pursuing it. It sounds to me as though the fault with the lens was one that was there from the outset and slipped through Sigma's quailty control. Personally I have always found Sigma lenses to perform well and offer good value. Or until you are thrown off every photography forum. Since then I have only bought one Sigma lens (the 8mm F3.5) and I only bought it as it is the only full frame circular AF lens for EOS - until the new Canon 8-15mm zoom.Ĭopy and paste your case with a warning: "Don't buy Sigma lenses!" on every photography forum until Sigma reimburses the cost to calibrate your lens. What disgusted me was that they never made it clear to users that they had not really done the job properly - they sold the lens as fully EOS compatible. However, in the course of my discussions it transpired that they had never licensed the Canon EOS AF mount and had merely reverse engineed it - I guess they got it wrong. They claim it is not their problem as canon changed their mount. Since I assume that they are still selling AF lenses for Canon I assume they must have some AF chips but my lens (like many others) cannot be used on an EOS digital body (only EOS film). When I contacted them to do this they told me thay had run out of chips and that the lens would not be compatible with any Digital EOS body. I was slightly later than some to add digital so I did not bother sending the lens off straight away for a replacement AF chip. Many years ago I bought a 14mm F3.5 and when Canon launched their DSLRs it would no longer AF. However, I've received it back on the 18th August and noticed Sigma have clobbered me for a further £67 for recalibration?īasically is 111 days to fix a lens an acceptable time frame and is the extra £67 justified.Īs a caveat, the lens is sharp once more and I am happy with it, just not with the rather apathetic service section of Sigma Lenses UK. More fool me for not noticing and letting it go out of warranty, fair enough. I bought it like that so it must have been shipped like it. After 10 weeks and repeated calls I was finally told it wasn't the chip and it needed to go back to Japan for total recalibration i.e. However, this was on the 28th April 2011 and cost for repairs and change of chip was £60. I explained the situation it had always been like that and they said tough, which is fair enough, not very spirited but fair enough. I sent the lens back to Sigma explaining the problem and unfortunately it was 1 day out of warranty. My colleague borrowed it and said it was back focusing and this was the reason why. I bought a Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens over a year ago and noticed it was usually never sharp and very hit and miss. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |