canon 350d sigma lens err 99
Paul
be backward compatible with the sigma lens i was using on my eos5. i keep
getting err 99 messages and the thing locks up. pretty sure its a
compatibility problem with sigma lenses, not very happy on two counts, 1
that it gives you no option but to use canon lenses, and 2 that surely the
camera should have been designed to be fully compatible with third party
lenses. the sigma lens i use was bought as a kit with an eos5 body supplied
by canon themselves! now it looks like i will either get the lens modified
of buy a canon lens before i can use the thing.
harrogate2
"Paul" <paul.o...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:41libbF...@individual.net...
Try using it on non-auto mode, either prog or aperature priority, it
may work.
I have a Sigma 28-200 APO and it works on my Nikon D70s but not in
auto mode, only P, S, A, or M.
--
Woody
harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com
SL
Other option is you can post useless camera to me, Id even pay for mailing
;-)
More seriously, this is a Sigma problem and well known to exist whenever
Canon brings out a new camera body. Sigma in their wisdom (and costs), did
not pay Canon any rights for its mount, rather they reverse engineered it.
Solution for most but not all their lenses is to get in touch with Sigma and
ask them to re-chip it for your new digital body, though I am unsure of any
costs involved, hopefully just postage and time.
Enjoy the camera in the mean time and why not see if you can pick up and old
standard Canon zoom like a 28-90mm to get you going, though I have recently
got a Vivitar 19-35mm, which is identical to the Cosina & Tokina versions,
apart from build quality & badges (gets very good reviews). You'll find
yourself looking for wide zooms due to the 1.6x magnification on the 350D
body.
Enjoy the camera, as I have one myself but have not used it that much so far
with Christmas and been sick of work, but I am very pleased so far.
Cheers,
Stephen.
Paul
"SL" <stephe...@spamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2vhtf.69860$vl2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
thanks for the replies so far, i think i will get in touch with sigma and
see what they say, i have always had sigma lenses and am pleased with them.
if it comes to it i'll have to get another modern sigma thats designed for
digital camera's. there's a couple on ebay i'm watching.
paul.
Malcolm Stewart
> thanks for the replies so far, i think i will get in touch with sigma and
> see what they say, i have always had sigma lenses and am pleased with
them.
> if it comes to it i'll have to get another modern sigma thats designed for
> digital camera's. there's a couple on ebay i'm watching.
>
> paul.
Sigma UK used to list re-chippable lenses on their website. They did one of
mine for nearly free, but the other was too old.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Paul
"Malcolm Stewart" <malcolm...@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:dp4a3c$1tp$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
just emailed sigma about the lenses, i think one might be too old to modify
as its nearly 10 years old, the other is only about 5 so hopefully they can
do that one.
Paul
Malcolm Stewart
>
> just emailed sigma about the lenses, i think one might be too old to
modify
> as its nearly 10 years old, the other is only about 5 so hopefully they
can
> do that one.
>
> Paul
Good luck. I've found that my old re-chipped Sigma 17-35 EX HSM f2.8-4
works OK on my 5D - at 17mm and at full aperture. Whereas my Canon EF20
f2.8 has serious vignetting at full aperture.
Tony Polson
>I have recently
>got a Vivitar 19-35mm, which is identical to the Cosina & Tokina versions,
>apart from build quality & badges (gets very good reviews).
Nonsense.
The current Tokina 19-35mm is an entirely different lens, one that is
optically far superior to the junk19-35mm lens sold as a Cosina,
Vivitar, Soligor or Phoenix - they are just brand names used by
Cosina.
Those are appalling lenses, with distortion so high that they are
almost fisheyes at the wide end, with severe pincushion distortion at
the tele end. They are unsharp even at f/8 to f/11. The build quality
is atrocious. Together with the dreadful 18-28mm lens most often sold
as a Sirius, but sometimes with other brand names, these Cosina wide
angle zooms must rank among the worst optics ever made for SLRs.
In contrast, the current Tokina is very well made, with solid build
quality and excellent optics. Control of distortion is particularly
good, and sharpness is outstanding for such an inexpensive lens.
Optically, the Tokina beats the Nikon 18-35mm by a considerable
margin, despite the latter costing several times more.
For a short period about ten years ago, Tokina sold the Cosina-made
lens under the Tokina brand. However, Tokina quickly replaced it with
their own superb 20-35mm design. That has now been replaced with the
even better Tokina 19-35mm design, one that should be on everyone's
shopping list if looking for a high quality, low cost wide angle zoom.
Stroller
"Paul" <paul.o...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>...
>just emailed sigma about the lenses, i think one might be too old to modify
>as its nearly 10 years old, the other is only about 5 so hopefully they can
>do that one.
Hi,
I have the same problem with a Sigma lens I bought 6 years ago for my
EOS 600. I tested in the shop with the 350D, but the problem didn't
manifest itself until I got it home!!
My lens is the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro. On the body
of the lens, on the centre section close to the AF/Manual switch, is
what appears to be a part or serial number, "3051078".
The address I found on Sigma's website was in...@sigmaphoto.com. They
don't seem to reply, despite me emailing them a couple of times. I've
already replaced this lens with a Canon, but of course I'd like to have it
rechipped if possible. Please let me know how you get on (this address
works).
Stroller.
Paul
"Stroller" <stro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:LqudnXI2Ctk...@eclipse.net.uk...
just spoke to sigma on the phone. of the two lenses i have one can be
chipped and one can't. if you have the receipt for the lens then the charge
is £5 p+p without the receipt its the lowest service charge they do £33.99.
for the lens they can't chip they do a trade in offer for a lens of
identical focal length. for my 28-200mm the RRP of the lens they will swap
is £218, i will get it for £117 which seems like a good deal. now i have to
find the receipt for the other lens, looked every where so far and not found
it.
Paul.
Stroller
>
> just spoke to sigma on the phone. of the two lenses i have one can be
> chipped and one can't. if you have the receipt for the lens then the charge
> for the lens they can't chip they do a trade in offer for a lens of
> identical focal length.
That's great news for me, as I have the receipt. Do you have the phone
number for them, please?
Stroller.
Simon Waldman
> just spoke to sigma on the phone. of the two lenses i have one can be
> chipped and one can't. if you have the receipt for the lens then the charge
> is £5 p+p without the receipt its the lowest service charge they do £33.99.
I do have to wonder whether they have a good reason for needing the
recipt, or whether it is simply a money-makign ploy on the basis that
many people will have lost it.
Can anyone think of what the recipt actually tells them?!
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul
"Simon Waldman" <swal...@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ivq293-...@blue.firecloud.org.uk...
not sure why they need it either, searched everywhere for mine, found the
original box for the lens but no receipt, trading my old 28-200 zoom in for
a new one too, at £117 seems like a good deal. i'll be glad to get them back
so i can at last use the camera. very annoying have a new camera sitting on
your desk that you can't use.
Paul.
Tony Polson
>Paul wrote:
>
>> just spoke to sigma on the phone. of the two lenses i have one can be
>> chipped and one can't. if you have the receipt for the lens then the charge
>> is £5 p+p without the receipt its the lowest service charge they do £33.99.
>
>I do have to wonder whether they have a good reason for needing the
>recipt, or whether it is simply a money-makign ploy on the basis that
>many people will have lost it.
>
>Can anyone think of what the recipt actually tells them?!
It tells them the lens has been purchased in the UK. There is no
obligation of any kind on Sigma's UK importer to repair or re-chip
Sigma lenses purchased outside the UK, of which there are many in
circulation, for example on eBay.
Simon Waldman
>
> It tells them the lens has been purchased in the UK. There is no
> obligation of any kind on Sigma's UK importer to repair or re-chip
> Sigma lenses purchased outside the UK,
ah. Fair enough, although clearly driven by finance rather than logic I
feel. The same lens would fail with the same camera regardless of where
it is.....
--
If men could regard the events of their own lives with more open minds
they would frequently discover that they did not really desire
the things they failed to obtain. -André Maurois
Tony Polson
>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> It tells them the lens has been purchased in the UK. There is no
>> obligation of any kind on Sigma's UK importer to repair or re-chip
>> Sigma lenses purchased outside the UK,
>
>ah. Fair enough, although clearly driven by finance rather than logic I
>feel. The same lens would fail with the same camera regardless of where
>it is.....
No, I think it is driven by logic.
If Sigma's UK importer - a private British company that is not owned
in whole or in part by Sigma Corporation - has not been involved in
importing the lenses, why on earth should they be expected to carry
the cost of re-chipping them?
Simon Waldman
> If Sigma's UK importer - a private British company that is not owned
> in whole or in part by Sigma Corporation - has not been involved in
> importing the lenses, why on earth should they be expected to carry
> the cost of re-chipping them?
Ah, I see. Still, Sigma must be aware that, at least for those of their
lenses with good optics, their main disadvantage is the possiblity of
current lenses not working with future cameras.
One would imagine that they would do everything that they could to
lessen this difficulty, including paying for re-chipping anywhere.
In an ideal world, of course, non-UK lenses delt with by UK importers
would be rougly equal to UK lenses delt with by other importers, and so
the whole thing would balance out. Unless some countries were to have
the lenses on sale at dramatically lower prices than others... oh wait ;-)
--
"The ultimate test of a relationship is to disagree
but hold hands." -- Alexander Penney
Tony Polson
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> If Sigma's UK importer - a private British company that is not owned
>> in whole or in part by Sigma Corporation - has not been involved in
>> importing the lenses, why on earth should they be expected to carry
>> the cost of re-chipping them?
>
>Ah, I see. Still, Sigma must be aware that, at least for those of their
>lenses with good optics, their main disadvantage is the possiblity of
>current lenses not working with future cameras.
>
>One would imagine that they would do everything that they could to
>lessen this difficulty, including paying for re-chipping anywhere.
>
>In an ideal world, of course, non-UK lenses delt with by UK importers
>would be rougly equal to UK lenses delt with by other importers, and so
>the whole thing would balance out. Unless some countries were to have
>the lenses on sale at dramatically lower prices than others... oh wait ;-)
Simon,
It took you some time, but I think you finally grasped the point.
;-)
As far as Sigma worrying about their reputation, I think they are far
more concerned about offering lenses at low prices than worrying about
whether they might or might not work with future camera bodies. Sigma
made a corporate decision many years ago not to pay licence fees for
the proprietary interfaces between lenses and cameras, preferring to
reverse engineer them instead, at much lower cost. That's one reason
(of several) why Sigma lenses are cheap.
You cannot realistically expect perfection at Sigma prices.
Stroller
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I do have to wonder whether they have a good reason for needing the
> >recipt, or whether it is simply a money-makign ploy on the basis that
> >many people will have lost it.
> >
> >Can anyone think of what the recipt actually tells them?!
>
> It tells them the lens has been purchased in the UK. There is no
> obligation of any kind on Sigma's UK importer to repair or re-chip
> Sigma lenses purchased outside the UK, of which there are many in
> circulation, for example on eBay.
But surely they grey importer, the bloke on eBay, for instance, can
issue a receipt for the lens? The receipt for my Sigma certainly doesn't
say "authorised Sigma reseller" on it (but then I haven't tested yet
whether they'll accept it).
Stroller.
Tony Polson
If the lens wasn't imported by Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited, Sigma's
official UK importer, you are not entitled to free re-chipping. If
your supplier didn't buy the lens from Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited,
there is no obligation of any kind to re-chip your lens for free.
As a gesture of goodwill, Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited will re-chip the
lens for a modest charge. This seems very reasonable to me.
If you want to save money by denying Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited any
involvement in your purchase, don't expect Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited
to help you out for free when you have problems. Why should they?
Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited offer a three year warranty on Sigma
products they import to the UK. Together with the free re-chipping
service, which many Sigma users will find necessary at some point,
especially if they use Canon cameras, this seems to me to offer good
value compared with grey imports.
If you insist on buying Sigma lenses from unknown sources because of
the apparent savings, remember that these savings are probably small
compared to the cost of having to pay for service that would otherwise
have been offered free of charge.
Paul
>
> If the lens wasn't imported by Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited, Sigma's
> official UK importer, you are not entitled to free re-chipping. If
> your supplier didn't buy the lens from Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited,
> there is no obligation of any kind to re-chip your lens for free.
>
> As a gesture of goodwill, Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited will re-chip the
> lens for a modest charge. This seems very reasonable to me.
>
i wonder if sigma uk keep records of serial numbers of the lenses they
import? that way a) they know they definitely imported it. and b) it gets
around the supplying of the receipt bit.
Stroller
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >But surely they grey importer, the bloke on eBay, for instance, can
> >issue a receipt for the lens? The receipt for my Sigma certainly doesn't
> >say "authorised Sigma reseller" on it (but then I haven't tested yet
> >whether they'll accept it).
>
>
> If the lens wasn't imported by Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited, Sigma's
> official UK importer, you are not entitled to free re-chipping. If
> your supplier didn't buy the lens from Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited,
> there is no obligation of any kind to re-chip your lens for free.
I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying that if buy a Sigma lens new in
this country I get a receipt for it whether my supplier bought it from
Sigma UK or whether they imported themselves greyly.
I can quite legitimately take a holiday to Hong Kong, return with a
suitcase of lenses (as long as I declare them, of course!), sell you a
lens and issue you with an invoice from "Sole Trader Photographic". Such
an invoice would appear to meet the requirements for an original
proof-of-purchase, so the requirement for a receipt is no proof that the
lens is an "official" Sigma UK import.
As Paul has suggested, the only real proof that the lens is an
authorised import would be if Sigma UK kept a database of the serial
numbers of lenses that they'd handled and queried that for such returns.
From the success of hard-drive manufacturers it'd appear to be quite
easy for them to do so. If they did so, however, they'd have no reason
to insist on the original receipt - it seems likely, then, that the
number of lenses for which the proof-of-purchase has been lost far
exceeds the number of grey-import lenses which Sigma end-up rechipping
(and I bet Sigma know this!).
All this is academic to me. My Sigma was certainly purchased within the
UK from a dealer who I'm sure to be reputable, I just haven't yet
checked with Sigma UK what the score is. Maybe they can rechip it, maybe
they can't - life's too short for me to worry or get upset over that -
but I won't be purchasing a Sigma again. You use words like
"reasonable", "goodwill" and "good value" in your posting, but I
wouldn't have had this problem if I'd known to buy a proper Canon lens
in the first place, and nor would the purchaser of a grey-import Canon
lens.
<rant - I tried to resist, honestly!>
Sigma's lenses seem to have decent optics and be well respected for such
cheap lenses - you can ask "what do you expect at that price?" but it's
not exactly like they announce on the box "sort of Canon-compatible, we
don't pay the license for Canon's specification, so not guaranteed
compatible with future Canon cameras the way a genuine EF lens would
be". Yes, you & other experienced photographers may be aware of the
issue, but inexperienced photographers & unwary buyers clearly are not.
</rant>
Stroller.
Tony Polson
>
><rant - I tried to resist, honestly!>
>Sigma's lenses seem to have decent optics and be well respected for such
>cheap lenses - you can ask "what do you expect at that price?" but it's
>not exactly like they announce on the box "sort of Canon-compatible, we
>don't pay the license for Canon's specification, so not guaranteed
>compatible with future Canon cameras the way a genuine EF lens would
>be". Yes, you & other experienced photographers may be aware of the
>issue, but inexperienced photographers & unwary buyers clearly are not.
></rant>
We all know that Sigma lenses are cheap. Very cheap, in fact, when
you compare them with camera brand lenses of apparently similar
specifications.
Anyone with common sense would realise that there must be something
missing. Anyone who believes the salesman's story that all lenses are
the same, but the camera manufacturers just charge more for them, is a
mug. Those claims may be partly true in a small number of specific
cases, but in general you pay less for Sigma and you get less.
Anyone with common sense researches something before he/she buys it.
It doesn't take much research to discover what you don't get with
Sigma lenses - you don't get a guarantee of compatibility, and in
particular, you definitely don't get a guarantee of *future*
compatibility. But you do get a re-chipping service at a modest price
(or for free) which seems a reasonable way of reducing the risk you
take in buying a cheap product.
Of course there are millions of people who buy things without
researching them beforehand, or blindly trust the sales spiel they get
from their favourite retail outlet, but frankly, I have no sympathy
for them. There is plenty of information out there. If they choose to
ignore it, they deserve what they get.
I snipped your comments about Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited needing a
receipt. There is a reasonable explanation for this. Sigma Imaging
(UK) Limited is a new company established to import Sigma lenses after
the previous importer went bust. I think the previous importer was
C.Z. Scientific Instruments, but I'm not sure.
I would guess that Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited probably did not receive
any records of serial numbers of Sigma lenses imported into the UK by
the previous importer. The only way of telling whether the lens you
bought is an official UK import is to check whether it was bought from
an officially appointed UK Sigma dealer. A receipt from a Sigma
authorised dealer will prove that it was.
You should realise by now that Sigma Imaging (UK) Limited are
honouring warranty service and free re-chipping for lenses that were
imported into the UK by the previous importer. I think it is to their
credit that they are doing this, as it provides continuity of service
despite the importing company having changed.