Sigma Lens conversion

  Ex plorer 15:51 22 Dec 2007

Hi I am about to change from 35mm to Digital and have a collection of lenses they are Sigma with Canon fit, it seems that the latest Canon 40D doesnt have a anti shake system which I could do with, as now I am not as steady as I used to be.
Anyone ever had experience in having sigma lenses converted to another camera.

  Bingalau 15:54 22 Dec 2007

I've no idea what a Sigma lens is, but you can bet someone in the Digital World forum will give you good answers..

  Forum Editor 16:02 22 Dec 2007

that some, if not all of your Sigma lenses will fail to work on the Canon 40D.

Canon doesn't licence its lens mounts, so companies like Sigma have to do a bit of reverse engineering to get their lenses to work. Just when everything is OK Canon change the mount circuitry, and lenses produce error codes on the camera screen. When this happened to me I contacted Sigma's UK office, and they were very helpful - they swapped a lens for me at very little cost, and the new one worked perfectly on my 400D.

  hssutton 16:36 22 Dec 2007

If they are old lenses than the probability of them working on a Canon DSLR are pretty remote. However Sigma will rechip some of their older lens so that they will work with Canon cameras.

Email Sigma Servicing with the serial number of these lenses and they will confirm as to whether thay can be converted. In the past Sigma have rechipped lenses free of charge, but only if you are the original owner, otherwise a charge of approx £35 was payable

  hssutton 16:37 22 Dec 2007

Link for Sigma click here

  Ex plorer 17:00 22 Dec 2007

OK thanks for that FE I have had my 3 Sigma Canon fit lenses some 18 years now and they were £1000+ then I doubt I would get an exchange but there would be no harm in asking.
Time to scout the net in the mean time for a Digital camera with the anti shake system.

  Ex plorer 17:03 22 Dec 2007

Cheers hssutton I will send an email and see what they say.

  Kemistri 18:15 22 Dec 2007

There are only two bodies with in-body IS that can be considered to be comparable in many or most respects to the 40D - these are the Sony A700 and the Olympus E-3. The latter is a four-thirds system rather than APS-C. I have used the Sony and it is a contender, for sure, though I would still rather have my 40D.

In-body IS has two drawbacks, one minor and one fairly major: you cannot see and monitor its effect and it is technically less effective with long telephotos.

click here and find out for yourself what users think of them.

  Kemistri 18:18 22 Dec 2007

In the interests of completeness, I should mention the slightly older Pentax K10D as well, but I would be reluctant to compare it directly to the A700 and 40D.

  Ex plorer 01:37 23 Dec 2007

Hi Kemistri thanks for pointing that out, I have done more research on this and I think I would rather be with-out IS.
I suppose Canon don't want to put it into the camera as the lenses they sell can be bought with IS but are very pricey.
I still prefer the canon 40D after reading the A70 pros and cons all be it a Highly recommended camera.
It seems my sturdy Tripod would be best and buy the 40D, and re-lens for it no point in cutting corners.

  Kemistri 02:03 23 Dec 2007

Yeah, I'm happy enough with in-lens IS when I need it, and two of my lenses have it. It is useful, I must admit (so many years without such technology left me a bit sceptical initially) - yesterday afternoon was very misty and dim and I was shooting without a tripod at 1600 ISO (which the 40D does very well indeed) and around 1/8sec. with a 17-85 at or near the wide end. Pin sharp every time. Canon's 3rd generation IS really is that good.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

The art of 'British' pulp fiction

Best password managers for Mac

TV & streaming : comment regarder le Tournoi des Six Nations 2018 ?