Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.

I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
not alone.

Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
retailer instead but that's another story for later.

So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.

Calvin Sambrook

On Oct 23, 11:46*am, "Calvin Sambrook" <csambr...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase..
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. *The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. *What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. *The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. *Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.

Plastic-c-c-c-c! Strikes again!!!

Rich

In article <hbsj1s$nm9$>, Calvin Sambrook
<> wrote:

> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.

that's actually a common failure for sigma lenses, not just on sony
cameras.

> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
> retailer instead but that's another story for later.

good move.

> So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
> has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
> job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
> usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.

just avoid sigma lenses

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>

nospam

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >just avoid sigma lenses
>
> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.

generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the
sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300
aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you
just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>

nospam

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:231020091224233264%...
> In article <>, John Navas
> <> wrote:
>
>> >just avoid sigma lenses
>>
>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>
> generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the
> sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300
> aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you
> just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>

I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly criticize a
major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is almost unheard of.
They must be absolutely certain of their position. And what a position, of
Sigma they say:
"Our techs coined the phrase "Sigma'd" to describe any lens that didn't
function."
"[Sigma's] repair turnaround time was, to be charitable, leisurely."
"Sigma was about 5% of our rentals but almost one-third of our customer
complaints."

I wish I'd known about that site before buying.


So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub £200, it's a hobby after
all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens
as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical
reviews. Are Tamron any good?

Calvin Sambrook

In article <hbt6p3$l7s$>, Calvin Sambrook
<> wrote:

> So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub £200, it's a hobby after
> all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens
> as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical
> reviews. Are Tamron any good?

some are and some aren't. it depends on the lens. the tamron 90mm macro
is outstanding, and one of the best macro lenses made. on the other
hand, the tamron 200-400mm was horrible, truly horrible.

nospam

In rec.photo.digital nospam <> wrote:
> In article <hbt6p3$l7s$>, Calvin Sambrook
> <> wrote:

>> So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub 200, it's a hobby after
>> all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens
>> as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical
>> reviews. Are Tamron any good?

> some are and some aren't. it depends on the lens. the tamron 90mm macro
> is outstanding, and one of the best macro lenses made. on the other
> hand, the tamron 200-400mm was horrible, truly horrible.

Same goes for Sony lenses. Their 18-250mm zoom for example is a
rebadged and slightly improved version of the highly respected
18-250mm Tamron. It's a rare manufacturer that makes no good
lenses. And despite the weak focus gear teeth on some of their heavier
long zooms, some of Sigma's lenses are very good too.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:58:04 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.

Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
delta cost for that.

me

"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
news:N_adnbGcFqa-...
> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
> > I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
> >
> > I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> > say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> > especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> > this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> > motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> > clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> > months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> > not alone.
> >
> > Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
> > in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
> > Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
> > retailer instead but that's another story for later.
> >
> > So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
> > has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
> > job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
> > usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.
>
> This has been a known problem for some time but it is good to raise it
> as a reminder.
>
> Further reading:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...the-sigma-saga


When I first read that link last year - the most interesting question
to me apart from the inordinate lengths they're going to blacken Sigma's
reputation, is the fact that the company in question is based in Cordova
Tennessee. Which with all due respect to Tennesseans is surely hardly
anyone's idea of the lens hiring capital of the US, or of the world for
that matter.

Other than this outfit most of the big lens hirers appear to be over the
counter outfits in big cities linked top retailers which branched out into
mail hire with the growth of the internet.

I'm surprised that nobody has ever stopped to question any of this.


None of the other - mostly OTC big city - hirers websites who I checked both
in the US and UK appear to have any problem with Sigma lenses at all. And from
memory one big seller in the UK offers all lenses including Sigma on 2 weeks
approval prior to purchase.


michael adams

....

michael adams

In article <>, me
<> wrote:

> >Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>
> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
> delta cost for that.

that's a very good lens, and there's also a new version of it with a
built-in motor.

nospam