Sigma Warranty Service

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by robert_buckley|1, Feb 25, 2014.

  1. I purchased a Sigma 18-250 MM F/3.5-6.3 DC OS Macro on 3/13 at B&H Photo. While out on an assignment the lens jammed at about the 200 MM position, I played with it and it went back to the 18 MM position, but you could feel it was rubbing. I ten tried to open again and it would not move, I tried moving the lock button but it too was stuck, since I was out on a Job, I tried to force the button with a screw driver, which failed but did mark up the button and scratch the lens barrel below the button. Sigma claimed there was external force and even accused me of taking the lens apart, which is a total lie. Bottom line is they will not honor warranty. This is the first time I did not buy a Nikon lens (which I have several and never had a problem) so it will be the last Sigma I buy.
     
  2. Can you really blame Sigma?
    If you had one the same damage to a Nikon lens, Nikon would not honor the warranty either.
     
  3. Elliot, I did not damage the lens, the button had a scrape mark on the button and barrel when the screw driver slipped because the lock button would not move. They accused me of taking it apart, which is untrue. Anyone looking at the lens could see the scrape marks could not have caused the lens to jam. If because I tried to unjam it was the problem, then so be it, but to accuse me of taking apart the lens, tells me they are just looking to avoid repair.
    Bob Buckley
     
  4. I think the lesson here is that consumer model lenses aren't meant for taking on assignments.
     
  5. Robert, they have no way of knowing for sure what you did. Since there are visible signs of damage, they have every right to reject the warranty claim, as would ANY manufacturer of any product that has visible signs of damage. Had you sent the lens in when it failed originally without any damage to it, they would have fixed it.
    I have had numerous Sigma products and have not had any issues. Whether meant for a consumer or pro, lenses and cameras can and do fail. My 'pro' 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon lens failed twice in several years. The shutter on my D3 failed well under its expected life. My D3 was fixed under warranty by Nikon even though the original warranty had expired. Nikon also fixed my 70-200mm although it had no warranty
    While many complain about Nikon service, they have always done right by me (I have always used Melville)! I am sure Sigma has done the same for Sigma owners, but you absolutely cannot fault Sigma here.
     
  6. You used a screwdriver on a button to force it...You damaged the lens. Even if it was after the fact of the zoom jamming.
    When it jammed you as a pro should have taken it off of the camera and used your backup.....
    I have had nothing but the best experiences with Sigma. Years ago back in the days of film I had a horse kick a chunk of gravel up and it dinged the front element on my Sigma 70-300. I sent it in expecting to pay to have it fixed. They replaced the front element cleaned and adjusted the lens for free. Last year I sent my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 in because the AF was starting to act up after 5 years of HARD professional use. I called them to see how long they thought it would be before I got my lens back. I was connected with the Tech who was working on my lens and we talked about what they problem was and when it was happening. He said he would call me back in a couple of days to let me know what he found. The technician called me back and told me what he did to fix the problem. And again the lens was fixed and shipped back to me at no charge.
    I have been shooting Nikon since 1982 and have never had the level of customer service that I have consistently received from Sigma.
     
  7. I have the Sigma 50-150 OS, which is the best lens I've ever had, and I've been shooting since 1972, and the 120-300 OS (non-USB). Both are pro level lenses and I would recommend them to anyone.
     
  8. Another vote for the unlikelihood that any manufacturer would accept your story with the physical marks of a screwdriver on the lens. For me, the first rule in any case like this is "don't force it".
    I've got a bunch of old and new Sigma lenses, and I have never, ever had to contact Sigma about warranty service since the lenses have worked fine without any problems.
     
  9. Sorry Robert, but several things conspire against you in this unfortunate situation. Firstly, the lens was only just within its warranty period. Secondly you took a screwdriver to it and caused obvious external damage, and thirdly - What were you thinking of using a cheap low-end consumer 15x zoom on a professional assignment with no backup?
    Sigma's consumer zooms are known to have a weak zoom mechanism on some models. The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Apo Macro lens for example has excellent optics at the price, but mechanically it's an all-plastic piece of junk. I know because my own sample recently completely seized up. Would I have the nerve to expect Sigma to fix this bargain-basement lens for free out of warranty? - No. Would I have used and trusted it on a paid job? - Definitely not!
     
  10. "I tried to force the button with a screw driver, which failed but did mark up the button and scratch the lens barrel below the button. Sigma claimed there was external force"​
    There was.
    Sigma claimed there was external force and even accused me of taking the lens apart, which is a total lie.​
    We're being told a screwdriver was used as external force on the lens yet, somehow, Sigma is lying about external force being used on the lens.
    "I did not damage the lens, the button had a scrape mark on the button and barrel when the screw driver slipped because the lock button would not move."​
    Translation: The lens was damaged. By external force.
    they are just looking to avoid repair.​
    Justifiably so.

    Sigma has repaired expired warranty lenses for me for free twice now. I highly doubt they are making anything up just to get you. Indeed, the marks could easily appear to be evidence of tampering.

    Given all the comments and the inconsistent explanation, I think we're having a self interested perception problem here.
     

Share This Page

1111