# help problem?



## rob1468 (Mar 31, 2015)

hi all ne the forum , im a disabled guy and have had the fortune to get hold of a Sigma 170-500 lens cheaply , i also own a canon 550d unit , but get the error err01 when its on the camera , can anyone help , ive tried cleaning the contacts , tried using im manual mode , tv, av even idiot mode but still the same error , has anyone else got the same lens how did you overcome the problem ?? is there a chip it needs ?? any help/info is much appreciated 
regards rob


----------



## Pookie (Mar 31, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9qwrWbS0d0


----------



## rs (Mar 31, 2015)

Does your camera work ok with other lenses? And are you able to try the lens with another body? Err 01 is a communication issue between the body and the lens, so you've taken the right steps with cleaning the contacts. My guess is its a lens issue.

However, it might be worth trying to remove any extras or non standard electronics from the camera - flash, battery grip, memory cards, try a genuine canon battery (if it is a 3rd party one in there), and also uninstall magic lantern (if installed), and try resetting to factory settings and even try a firmware update. These are all long shots, but you never know...


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 1, 2015)

Hi Rob. 
Welcome to the forum. 
I grabbed a "bargain" the other day, a Sigma 70-300, intended to pass it to a friend, turned out it was a film camera lens, gave me err 01. I don't know if the Sigma 170-500 is from the film era, but wondered if this could be the issue, if it is I believe some of the Sigma range can be upgraded (by Sigma) to play nice with digital. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## PropeNonComposMentis (Apr 1, 2015)

Hi guys.

I have seen this issue from the other-way-round. Ppl have a fine 10yo EF lens on a Film body, they upgrade the body to digital, and it all comes undone...

Not all EF / EF-s lens' are made equal.
In the 80's Cokin (and someone else) were making adapters, I made a few for clients, but it was crazy, two identical lens' sometimes required different adapters.. wt... Go figure !

Usually it was just a matter of swapping Data+ and Data- 
That guy on youbloodyidiottube, stuck at _f/4.0_ with his PROROKINON, is a quick fix. A protection diode on one of the Data contacts has gone into 'short' mode. 3min fix.. 
Could even be as simple as a 'dry joint'.

Good luck, hope you guys can find a suitable fix.

_Happy snap'in_


----------



## rob1468 (Apr 1, 2015)

Thanks for the reply's , and a welcome to the forum  , just an update I emailed both canon and sigma yesterday , had a reply from canon saying they don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck I find this poor for a large company like them not giving you the freedom or equal right to use a third party lens , anyways that's another thread on its own , also sigma has contacted me and have said its just a re-chip needed on lens send to them and pay £37.99 and job done , well done sigma at least they still want you to use their lens on all cameras not just on a select few , so will send it to be chipped and will update you all on their service and work 
Rob


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2015)

rob1468 said:


> had a reply from canon saying they don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck I find this poor for a large company like them not giving you the freedom or equal right to use a third party lens



You're free to *use* it, and Canon doesn't do anything to block using 3rd party lenses (unlike 3rd party batteries, btw). But as they don't have any profit from you buying Sigma, understandably they aren't very excited about having to pay their people to answer your questions about configurations they didn't test.

Note that I'm not a Canon fanboi, but you have to acknowledge a legit commercial interest of original brands like Canon and Nikon when dealing with 3rd party companies basically copying/emulating their r&d.



rob1468 said:


> anyways that's another thread on its own , also sigma has contacted me and have said its just a re-chip needed on lens send to them and pay £37.99 and job done , well done sigma at least they still want you to use their lens on all cameras not just on a select few , so will send it to be chipped and will update you all on their service and work



Seems like a reasonable price, newer lenses have the "usb dock" so you can do drop-in firmware upgrades (amongst other things) w/o sending the lens in.


----------



## rob1468 (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> rob1468 said:
> 
> 
> > had a reply from canon saying they don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck I find this poor for a large company like them not giving you the freedom or equal right to use a third party lens
> ...


Thanks and yes I did understand canons predicament, but you would have thought with the amount of 3rd party lens available they would have been more amenable but not to worry will just get a rechip and yes with the new sub dock all the headaches of things like this is in the past just shows how much advancement has been achieved , I remember the old 35mm film cameras which you could do nothing with you didn't even know how your prints would turn out until developed I think it was about a third was unusable so not very cost effective lol


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 1, 2015)

rob1468 said:


> rob1468 said:
> 
> 
> > had a reply from canon saying they don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck I find this poor for a large company like them not giving you the freedom or equal right to use a third party lens
> ...


Hi rob1468!

... but it seems you *really didn't understand* "_canons predicament_" and therefore I saw the urge to post here.

Just to make it clear:

It is not Canon, that gains profit from buying and using 3rd party lenses on their bodies.
It is not Canon, beeing responsible for a 3rd party product working with their proprietary products.
It is not in Canons responsibility, to publish and share their internal interfaces, eg. AF, as long as they don't get paid for it.

_Edit: Canon has the right to change these proprietary interfaces at any time they desire. They do it to increase performance, That's nice. And they do it to protect themselves from 3rd party manufacturers. That's not so nice._

But if Canon had to take care about 3rd party manufacturers this would have meant additional coordination with them, additional development and system test and therefore *additional costs* that will lead to *more expensive products*.

And what is the main argument of 3rd party manufacturers:
Beeing cheaper, sometimes even beeing better, but only sometimes.
*So the responsibility for a 3rd party product is only, and only alone in the hands of the 3rd party manufacturer*.

*We are not in the open standard PC world* where this HDD has to fullfill that SATA standard and those USB3.0 sticks must work with that USB3.0 interface on the motherboard although both have streched the standard to opposite side of the tolerances.

And therefore a polite but clear "Sorry, not our responsibility" from Canon is just okay, IMHO.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> It is not Canon, that gains profit from buying and using 3rd party lenses on their bodies.
> [...]
> And therefore a polite but clear "Sorry, not our responsibility" from Canon is just okay, IMHO.



Well, I don't think it's _quite_ that easy: Canon of course gets a larger market share of their camera bodies because people know they can buy cheaper flashes than a €500 600ex, or get better quality lenses than the kit w/o paying the premium L price.

Thus this semi-open system benefits Canon, and while imho it's ok to deny customer service in these combinations, it's not ok to take an arrogant stance like "we told you so". If they actually *would* tell people not to use 3rd party lenses, how many would switch to Nikon?

Last not least, while they're not forced to keep compatibility with older 3rd party lenses on new camera bodies, I wouldn't be surprised if they happen to build one or more unpleasant "surprises" into their products just for good measure (remember Microsoft sabotaging DR-DOS that could also be used to run Windows 3.1?)


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 1, 2015)

Hi Rob. 
Wow 40 quid seems like a bit of a bargain for the re chip of a lens. Look forwards to hearing the final result. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 2, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > It is not Canon, that gains profit from buying and using 3rd party lenses on their bodies.
> ...


Please remember that the flash hotshoe is somewhat a semi standard, although each company uses it for its own purposes.



> or get better quality lenses than the kit w/o paying the premium L price.


I don't know if they take this into account in a positive way. But maybe...



> it's not ok to take an arrogant stance like "we told you so".
> If they actually *would* tell people not to use 3rd party lenses, how many would switch to Nikon?


Of course it's not okay to do it in an arrogant way and manner.
But it is necessary for them to do it - in a correct manner. Otherwise damage caused from this "misusage" could be taken to court by the customers. You surely know how laws and lawyers work nowadays...
e.g. "Nobody told me that a cruise control is not an autopilot!" :

And what do you think is Nikon doin here...? The same!



> .
> ... I wouldn't be surprised if they happen to build one or more unpleasant "surprises" into their products just for good measure ...


This is what I meant when I wrote _ "...to protect themselves from 3rd party manufacturers. That's not so nice."
_

To me the policy is correct, but it must be pursued in a correct manner.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 2, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Please remember that the flash hotshoe is somewhat a semi standard, although each company uses it for its own purposes.



I was thinking of the rt flash protocol here, I should have been more specific... in the long run, I'm positive 3rd party manufacturers like Yongnuo help Canon keep their market leadership and ultimately result in Canon making more money. They cannot really expect people to buy overpriced plastic lens hoods or caps, can they?



Maximilian said:


> But it is necessary for them to do it - in a correct manner. Otherwise damage caused from this "misusage" could be taken to court by the customers. You surely know how laws and lawyers work nowadays...



Sure, but I've often read that Canon takes the "we absolutely don't care about customer's problems with 3rd party products" position rather than "please understand we cannot offer service with this combination"... like in this thread, the op understood Canon "_don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck_"



Maximilian said:


> This is what I meant when I wrote _ "...to protect themselves from 3rd party manufacturers. That's not so nice."To me the policy is correct, but it must be pursued in a correct manner._


_

We absolute agree on this, I just wanted to clarify the point because in a Canon enthusiast forum it's easy to confuse someone arguing a point in favor of a manufacturer with fanboyism giving a blank cheque for every business practice._


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 2, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I was thinking of the rt flash protocol here...


Understood and agreed.
[/quote]
We absolute agree on this, I just wanted to clarify ...
[/quote]
Understood and agreed as well.
Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## rob1468 (Apr 22, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Rob.
> Wow 40 quid seems like a bit of a bargain for the re chip of a lens. Look forwards to hearing the final result.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



Well guys , 
quick update the lens was sent to sigma who has carried out a rechip , and full check and calibrate , and has now been returned to me , It works a treat no more errors , works on av/tv as well as idiot mode so all is well , and for 37.99 i think its a really good price for what they have done , so a big thumbs up to sigma who done a great job 
regards rob


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2015)

rob1468 said:


> Thanks for the reply's , and a welcome to the forum  , just an update I emailed both canon and sigma yesterday , had a reply from canon saying they don't endorse the use of a third party lens in other words buy canon or tuff luck I find this poor for a large company like them not giving you the freedom or equal right to use a third party lens , anyways that's another thread on its own , also sigma has contacted me and have said its just a re-chip needed on lens send to them and pay £37.99 and job done , well done sigma at least they still want you to use their lens on all cameras not just on a select few , so will send it to be chipped and will update you all on their service and work
> Rob



I had 5 Sigma lenses, but they would only re-chip one, and that cost me over $100. The other four were door stops. And, those millions of lenses made by Sigma and sold as Quantaray were all consigned to the junk pile. I came away with the feeling that they did not want my business.

As far as Canon somehow designing a camera to work with a lens that may not even exist when it was designed ... good luck. Do you think that Chevrolet is designing 2015 cars to work with a 2020 Ford Engine?


----------

