Have I been totally ripped off? (lens for a canon body)

[hermitcrab]

Hi. The situation I've gotten into is a really bizzarre one and exactly how everything happened is a bit complex, but basically this is the story:

I own a 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Canon EF lens for a Canon EOS 650 body. Recently, it was accidentily dropped. The body is fine but the lens' coupling(? I think) that allows for the lens to zoom in and out has been damaged. I've been trying to replace the lens and somehow got into a situation where my dad was misguidely encouraged by a shady salesman to purchase a Sigma 28-200mm 1:3.8-3.6 UC used lens for $200 CAD. I personally hate the lens and find it a real inconvience for what I want the lens to do. I tried to go back to get a refund, but the salesman kept on saying how he was giving us a good deal on a good lens.

I came away quite angry, feeling like it was a dishonest man giving false information to get a sale.

The seller's main points on selling the lens were:

1) The sigma has a far superior glass than the original canon lens that I have and will definetly outperform the canon lens

Is it true? It seems doubtful that a third party consumer lens can outperform a consumer level canon lens.

2) The sigma's lens body was much sturdier than my canon lens which he said was made of cheap plastic parts

Ironically, I never had a complaint about the canon, but now that I own this sigma lens, I've come to hate it's very cheap feeling plastic body esp. at 200mm. It doesnt zoom in and out very smoothly either

3) The sigma can be used on a digital rebel, but the canon lens I own cannot

Is this true? I thought the digital rebel could take any EF lens.

4) The sigma has more range. more range = better lens.

I'm not looking for a large range (esp. don't need too much on the telephoto end). The quality of the image is more important.

5) The aspherical element in the lens allowed it be used on a digital camera body

from what i know, that isn't the purpose of having an aspherical lens, right?

6) This lens costs $400 CAD at Futureshop, but he would sell it at $200CAD

On Adorama, the brand new, upgraded version of this lens, Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Compact Aspherical Hyperzoom AutoFocus Macro Lens with Hood for Canon EOS Cameras, is going for $185 USD.

Prior to selling this to us, he said that he was going to give us a brand new, canon brand lens, but when my dad went to get it, he came back with a sigma minus front or rear caps. The seller also said he couldn't give us a refund because he had ordered that lens specifically for us. We had never asked him to order this lens, rather he had said to us that he had it available (and at the time I thought he meant the Canon EF 28-105 f/ 3.5-4.5 which I want).

I suppose the main question is, was any of what that man saying the truth? And is a used lens like this even worth $200 CAD?

Maybe I've answered my own questions, but it felt good to rant.

 

[drlynn]

Most of the reviews of SIgma lenses I've seen were pretty good, but I've never seen one that said they outperformed Canon glass. As for the plastic body, nearly all consumer-level lenses have plastic bodies.

I'm not familiar with the particular lens you have, but most Sigmas I've seen are a bit soft at large apertures.

All Canon EOS compatible (AF) lens will work on the Digital Rebel, to the best of my knowledge.

Longer range on a zoom generally means a trade-off. In exchange for only having to carry 1 lens to cover the 28-200mm range instead of 2, you generally lose sharpness at one end of the zoom range or the other.

It sounds like either your salesman isn't as knowledgeable as he thinks he is, or he was trying to take advantage of your dad.

 

[Big Mike]

I also have an EOS 650 and the 35-105 F3.5-4.5 to go with it.

From what I have read, this lens may be slightly better than the super-cheap consumer lenses available today.

I don't know much about that Sigma lens but Sigma does make some pretty good lenses. Although for the the salesman to say that it's far superior to the Canon, may be a stretch. How old is the Sigma lens? The Canon lens has been out of production for a while now (I think) so the Sigma may have better/newer technology.

If you really feel that you were ripped off, take it back and make a stink until he gives you a refund. If it was such a good deal he should be happy to take it back.

 

[ksmattfish]

There is nothing wrong with Sigma lenses, but that is besides the point.

Did it come in a box with warranty, instructions, etc...? A new lens should have both end caps. Hopefully he's not passing off a used lens on you.

If you aren't happy with the lens, it doesn't matter how good it is. If it's a legitimate transaction, I don't see how they can refuse to give you your money back.

If you didn't ask him to special order it, you have no obligation to buy it. Also, 95% of the camera stores in the world that sell Sigma brand regularly stock a 28-200 for Canon EOS. I don't buy his special order bullsh*t.

Return it. Don't deal with the salesperson. Only speak to the manager.

I worked in a lab/camera store for 3.5 years. I watched my boss push equipment on people that they would never need because it had a high profit margin, or she wanted to get rid of it.

I always tried to sell folks equipment that would help them as photographers. My theory was that if I didn't screw them, they'd come back to me for more, and they usually did.

Most of the sales people I worked with were not even what I would call "amateur" photographers. They were sales people trying to make a buck, and could care less about photography, or the people they were puxhing expensive equipment on.

Remember, not only is the salesperson making a commission from the store on the profits of the sale, they get paid by the manufacturers of the equipment for selling certain equipment. That guy is probably getting $35 to $50 from Sigma on that sale, besides the sales commission.

Get your money back, and never go back to that store. By the way, what is the name of the store so that we can all steer clear of it.

 

[hermitcrab]

Thanks for the info! Well it's good to know the lens is decent. I suppose I initially just wrote it off quality wise out of my anger since the lens was kind of shoved in our face with a lot of misinformation.

The problem with returning it is that it wasn't purchased at a well known store. It was from a small, independently run store (Yan Lucky, I doubt any of you will ever run into it) that doesn't even specialize in cameras. I know, I should have seen as a major warning sign. However, we had been recommended to this man (he had owned a camera store for 10 years prior to coming to Canada) and he had done a good job doing maintanence cleaning on my camera last year. We had come back to him in hopes that he could fix the coupling on the lens, but he offered selling us this lens instead. The transaction itself was paid in cash with no receipt, which is not so great.

I'm very sure that this is a used lens because it came with no caps, no box, no manual, no warranty. This version of the lens itself has been discontinued, replaced with an upgraded version.

Despite all of this, I'm incredibly glad that we ended up with this lens over the other lens that the man had initially considered selling us, an apparently used 28-80 canon starter kit lens sans caps (for the same price as the sigma btw). :?

 

[ksmattfish]

I have a Tamron 28-200 zoom that I love for travelling, or when I need to go light, but prepared for different situations. I don't use it for all photos, but it's very versatile, and takes great pics, and I'm sure that the Sigma is of similar or better quality.

 

[TomRussell]

sorry to resurrect a topic that's been dead for 2 or 3 weeks but i felt the need to say something.

Don't just assume sigma lenses are worse quality - the lens you got fobbed off with was probably one of the budget lenses that sigma do. Think Rebel Kit EF-S lens and you won't be far wrong. (plasticky construction, poor build quality etc.)

Optically though there isn't much wrong with them.

However, if you want a good lens i can highly recommend sigma EX series glass, which is in a completely different league. It's been compared to Canon L glass, and is considerably cheaper - almost half the price - and build quality is certainly NOT lacking. My 70-200 f/2.8 EX is arriving tomorrow, having ordered it after borrowing one from a friend to check it out.

On another note, i've never trusted something with such a wide range as 28-200mm. in my opinion i'd use 2 lenses to cover that sort of focal length difference.

Anyway. Back on topic, although it's already been said, take the lens back and speak to the manager, not a sales drone.

First post, by the way.

Tom Russell.

 

[BernieSC]

Sigma is a very good brand and the 28-200 is a good lens. But I can see where that much zoom range could be inconveinant sometimes. I don't think you got ripped off but i can tell you this he made a hell of lot more profit on selling you that lens than a canon brand lens.

It doesn't mean the lens is not as good but aftermarket lenses have a much higher profit margin than brand lenses for the photo shop.