Sony's (lack of?) lens quality control

[ZoranC]

As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once they were announced I have, naturally, followed posts related to them and lenses for them on some of the major forums. I have heard quite a few praises of 55/1.8 so I went and ordered it. During shooting with it I started feeling something seems to be off with the lens. At approximately same time I became aware of posts with people complaining that their copies of 35/2.8 were arriving optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return more than one before they got one that was more or less OK. For example, posts in threads like this one http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49755-35-fe-sonnar-decentering-who-else.html

That made me pay closer attention could it be that my copy of 55/1.8 is decentered. Checking for that showed that it is, which was easily visible when I compared it against second copy of same lens. Naturally first copy went back and second one was kept (even though second copy too indicates it might be bit off as I just wasn't in position to focus anymore on that). At that moment I attributed experience to bad luck with one copy and didn't give it any further thought.

Some time later I decided I want to get 35/2.8. Moment my copy arrived it was obvious it is a bad copy and it went back faster than it arrived. To make long story short it took way more than one try to end up with copy that is (almost) OK (I say almost because even one I kept is not completely as it should be, it was just one with least amount of "issue").

While I was going through my experience with 35/2.8 I started becoming aware of posts with people complaining that their newly arrived copies of 24-70/4 were optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return them to get "OK" copies.

Which brought me to question that is the reason of why I am starting this thread: I am wondering who else had issues with their copies of 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 24-70/4 or 28-70/3.5-5.6, what that issue was, did you end up resolving it or you gave up, what it took to resolve it, if resolution was to get another copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?

 

[philip_pj]

Hello Zoran,

Not to get in the way of your thread (as a very happy 1.8/55 user), but rather to add to the knowledge of the issue more generally, here are two excellent articles on the subject by Roger Cicala, the lensrental man.

LensRentals.com - There is No Perfect Lens

LensRentals.com - The Limits of Variation

 

[Slingers]

I looked at your post history to see your images with the A7R but I couldn't find any. Would you be able to share some of images you are unhappy with as I'm sure that would help readers more than just writing about your complaints. The 55 fe is on its way to me at the moment and I am hoping I don't need to send it back.

 

[tashley]

Zoran, I, too, think the Lens Rentals articles sum up 'where we're at' with lens QC..

It took me three 35 2.8 and two 55 1.8 and three 24-70 lenses to get good copies and only the 55 is perfect. Sadly this is more or less normal I think. Some Nikon lenses took me a few attempts and I have had issues with Leica and Zeiss and Sigma and Tamron and others. early shooting with a Canon TSE 24mm I bought yesterday indicates a possible problem.

I think the statistical chances of getting an effectively perfectly assembled copy of any given lens are probably less than 50%. It's is, I'm afraid, par for the course and the pursuit of a good, rather than perfect copy, is enough in itself to stretch sanity sometimes. Testing is very difficult to do well, too.

But these Sony lenses, when you get a good one, really are worth it!

 

[Viramati]

Well my 35 and 55 were fine first time round, Have just got the 24-70 which is complex lens and will take more testing. That being said I don't do testing using test sheets etc but just put the lens through my normal working routine. I feel I will have some difficulty accurately assessing the zoom as i am so used to using primes and may come to expect to much of it

 

[ZoranC]

Hello Zoran,

Not to get in the way of your thread (as a very happy 1.8/55 user), but rather to add to the knowledge of the issue more generally, here are two excellent articles on the subject by Roger Cicala, the lensrental man.

LensRentals.com - There is No Perfect Lens

LensRentals.com - The Limits of Variation

Hi Philip, I am aware of these articles but thank you for the links on behalf of those that are not. You are correct in that I hope posting them will not derail this thread off the topic.

Regards,

Zoran

 

[ZoranC]

I looked at your post history to see your images with the A7R but I couldn't find any. Would you be able to share some of images you are unhappy with as I'm sure that would help readers more than just writing about your complaints. The 55 fe is on its way to me at the moment and I am hoping I don't need to send it back.

Slingers, while your post has tone of trolling bait I will for now give you benefit of a doubt and just say one doesn't need images from me that illustrate the problem. Those that know what optical misalignment is know what it looks like. Plus, they were not requested from those that reported issues with their copies on this very forum before, thus there is no need that you demand them in such manner from me either.

 

[ZoranC]

Zoran, I, too, think the Lens Rentals articles sum up 'where we're at' with lens QC..

It took me three 35 2.8 and two 55 1.8 and three 24-70 lenses to get good copies and only the 55 is perfect. Sadly this is more or less normal I think. Some Nikon lenses took me a few attempts and I have had issues with Leica and Zeiss and Sigma and Tamron and others. early shooting with a Canon TSE 24mm I bought yesterday indicates a possible problem.

I think the statistical chances of getting an effectively perfectly assembled copy of any given lens are probably less than 50%. It's is, I'm afraid, par for the course and the pursuit of a good, rather than perfect copy, is enough in itself to stretch sanity sometimes. Testing is very difficult to do well, too.

But these Sony lenses, when you get a good one, really are worth it!

tashley, thank you for your very valuable input. I am sorry to hear that you too went through same experience. At least it tells me my experience is not an exception. I, as an engineer, very well know difference between "perfection" and "good enough / within reasonable tolerances", which I often use term "as it should be" for. Which brings me to hit ratio of "within reasonable tolerances" copies. In other words, what are the chances of random person reaching for random copy of the lens off some shelf and getting copy that is "within reasonable tolerances". Didn't you feel that having to go through 8 copies of lenses to end up with three acceptable ones is way too low of a hit ratio?

 

[tashley]

I did feel that but as I observed elsewhere, to get lenses of these design complexities on the shelf at the right price for the consumer to be interested and with enough profits for the manufacturer and the retailer, seems to mean that QC is where costs are cut.

Think of it this way: a lot of lenses that don't perform well in real world use will actually pass the sorts of QC that manufacturers can afford to do. It takes me several hours to be sure a lens is duff. Even my new 'quick setup' test for asymmetry takes at least an hour from start to finish with a zoom, and half an hour with a prime. They just can't afford to do that with every lens and it is quite hard to automate in any way.

What this means I think is that there is a normal distribution of quality on the shelf - a few clunkers, a few pretty much perfect, and a lot which aren't great but which to most punters aren't 'clearly and immediately wrong'. What that means is that if you're one of they guys who buys,tests, returns until you get a really good one, then you're being paid for your testing because if all lenses were tested that well, they'd cost a lot more - an amount you save by doing the testing yourself!

That's how I make myself happier after a day of tough testing. Today I returned a Canon 24mm TSE and the dealer let me try another three copies including one from they display cabinet that was in a different serial number range. They were all soft on the left, on two different bodies, even at F8. So I took at 17mm TSE instead and it seems good so far but I haven't done the full test yet.

SO yes, it is tremendously boring and time consuming and I hate it. But it make the stuff cheaper.

 

[ZoranC]

Troll bait? Is it unreasonable to ask a stranger for an example of the effect of a faulty lens? I suspect there may be some people posting about the faults of various cameras and lenses whose standards are so high that their criticisms might be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't know the OP or the alleged "troller;" just saying that one shouldn't be insulted when asked for a sample.

Please notice topic of this thread is not "is my lens decentered" but "questions to those that also got decentered copy". If responder to my original post is not in position to provide input on actual topic then his point is pointless.

Also please notice I don't need to establish proof for a purpose of this thread, nor do I need to establish at which level are my standards, especially when others were not asked to do same when they posted comments about their copies. Did responder to my post, or you, question Guy Mancuso or tashley to establish what level their standards are at when they commented on their misaligned copies? No? My point exactly, thank you.

So, if you don't mind, I would like to go back to the topic of the thread without further derailing. Do you own/use lens in question? If yes have you checked your copies for misalignment and found misalignment?

 

[ZoranC]

I did feel that but as I observed elsewhere, to get lenses of these design complexities on the shelf at the right price for the consumer to be interested and with enough profits for the manufacturer and the retailer, seems to mean that QC is where costs are cut.

Think of it this way: a lot of lenses that don't perform well in real world use will actually pass the sorts of QC that manufacturers can afford to do. It takes me several hours to be sure a lens is duff. Even my new 'quick setup' test for asymmetry takes at least an hour from start to finish with a zoom, and half an hour with a prime. They just can't afford to do that with every lens and it is quite hard to automate in any way.

What this means I think is that there is a normal distribution of quality on the shelf - a few clunkers, a few pretty much perfect, and a lot which aren't great but which to most punters aren't 'clearly and immediately wrong'. What that means is that if you're one of they guys who buys,tests, returns until you get a really good one, then you're being paid for your testing because if all lenses were tested that well, they'd cost a lot more - an amount you save by doing the testing yourself!

That's how I make myself happier after a day of tough testing. Today I returned a Canon 24mm TSE and the dealer let me try another three copies including one from they display cabinet that was in a different serial number range. They were all soft on the left, on two different bodies, even at F8. So I took at 17mm TSE instead and it seems good so far but I haven't done the full test yet.

SO yes, it is tremendously boring and time consuming and I hate it. But it make the stuff cheaper.

I hear your points. At the same time I don't agree with premise that "QC has to be cut to cut the costs to be able to deliver these lenses at the right price to a consumer".

First, $800-ish for a non-premium lens (35/2.8) is anything but inexpensive.

Second, examples of recent Sony's fire sales (including ones where employees were allegedly allowed to buy lenses and bodies at 50% off) indicate that there is quite a lot of profit margin in these lenses which further indicates cost of QC doesn't need to be cut into to deliver them "inexpensively" to consumer.

Last, but not least, you and I are testing in manual way. These lenses are (should be) IMHO high precision components made on modern production lines with sophisticated tools and thus "quality control" is not a "manual after the production" deal, it is a part of a process from beginning to the end. If lenses that are rolling out off such line are in such shape that only one out of three or so would pass check of knowledgable consumer then something is off big time.

 

[tashley]

Just to help: I hereby define what I think is an unnaceptable amount of asymmetry in a brand new lens:

These are the same file, left and right hand sides, of a very carefully setup outdoor shoot at my dealer today of a Canon 24 TSE on A7r. The results were very similar on a 5DIII so I don't think my otherwise well-behaved adaptor is to blame.

 

[tashley]

I hear your points. At the same time I don't agree with premise that "QC has to be cut to cut the costs to be able to deliver these lenses at the right price to a consumer".

First, $800-ish for a non-premium lens (35/2.8) is anything but inexpensive.

Second, examples of recent Sony's fire sales (including ones where employees were allegedly allowed to buy lenses and bodies at 50% off) indicate that there is quite a lot of profit margin in these lenses which further indicates cost of QC doesn't need to be cut into to deliver them "inexpensively" to consumer.

Last, but not least, you and I are testing in manual way. These lenses are (should be) IMHO high precision components made on modern production lines with sophisticated tools and thus "quality control" is not a "manual after the production" deal, it is a part of a process from beginning to the end. If lenses that are rolling out off such line are in such shape that only one out of three or so would pass check of knowledgable consumer then something is off big time.

We will have to disagree. Sony isn't profitable, the industry is under great pressure, the margin on an individual products tells you nothing and fire sales don't indicate margin. I believe from doing a lot of lens testing that it can be a slippery beast to pine down and prove: it can come and go at different subject distances and apertures and in zooms it can move from side to side.

Build tolerances to get a perfect copy are tighter than the cost and profit balance of these manufacturers can allow to be made perfectly tight. Manual QC to find the problem lenses would be extremely time consuming. And because something is expensive, doesn't mean that it has high margin. They're expensive to make.

I don't excuse the manufacturers at all but I do pity them. Even the best of them is not immune, and that refers to some people who live, sleep, eat and breath lenses.

 

[vjbelle]

I hear your points. At the same time I don't agree with premise that "QC has to be cut to cut the costs to be able to deliver these lenses at the right price to a consumer".

First, $800-ish for a non-premium lens (35/2.8) is anything but inexpensive.

Second, examples of recent Sony's fire sales (including ones where employees were allegedly allowed to buy lenses and bodies at 50% off) indicate that there is quite a lot of profit margin in these lenses which further indicates cost of QC doesn't need to be cut into to deliver them "inexpensively" to consumer.

Last, but not least, you and I are testing in manual way. These lenses are (should be) IMHO high precision components made on modern production lines with sophisticated tools and thus "quality control" is not a "manual after the production" deal, it is a part of a process from beginning to the end. If lenses that are rolling out off such line are in such shape that only one out of three or so would pass check of knowledgable consumer then something is off big time.

You know, I don't even know how to start but you are entering into the world of POOR quality control by Sony. I've never seen anything quite like it.... especially with their boasting about the ultra high quality of their lenses. Bottom line is if you want really good lenses then you have to pay more money and if the lens doesn't meet your standards then make sure you have purchased from someone who will take it back. I'm done with Sony/Zeiss lenses. Wouldn't consider owning their zoom and won't buy any more primes. Comments have been made regarding f stops not influencing DOF when increased. Odd.... don't you think?? I experienced the same thing and was more than curious but.... again I'm done with this stuff. And if you think you can go to the Leica camp...... well good luck!! You'll just spend more money for mediocre lenses. The only company making any effort forward is Zeiss and they should be applauded. Otus is their first effort and will be expanded. But even their legacy lenses, ie 100mm Macro Planar, are extraordinary and work extremely well on the A7r. So there is hope. Also, the Zeiss prime lenses for the Alpha cameras have tested well and should perform well on the A7r. But, once again, those lenses are expensive and heavy and..... will deliver files that you will be happy with.

Good luck with your quest......

Victor

 

[ZoranC]

Just to help: I hereby define what I think is an unnaceptable amount of asymmetry in a brand new lens:

tashley, thank you for posting these. I personally don't believe in "pics or it doesn't exist" but still thank you.

 

[ZoranC]

We will have to disagree.

... and that's OK

Sony isn't profitable, the industry is under great pressure, the margin on an individual products tells you nothing and fire sales don't indicate margin.

Lack of profitability and pressure can't be an excuse for slips/cutting in manufacturing, such roads are very slippery as they can end up in even less profitability. This is capitalism, consumers are not there to cut some company slack just because they are not profitable. It is true that fire sales don't indicate marging but I doubt Sony would be giving 50% off if that meant they are selling at loss.

I believe from doing a lot of lens testing that it can be a slippery beast to pine down and prove: it can come and go at different subject distances and apertures and in zooms it can move from side to side.

Yes, it is very hard to pin down and yes, over the years I have seen all these factors you mention influence it.

Build tolerances to get a perfect copy are tighter than the cost and profit balance of these manufacturers can allow to be made perfectly tight.

We are not looking for perfect, are we? We are just looking for "as it should be". What is "as it should be"? That can be very hard to define but yet I think there can be a simple definition: "As it should be" is what allows you to take photo, print it at size MP count allows for and that flaw is not visible to those looking at that print from normal viewing distance. Were you looking for your TS Canon to be "perfect"? Or you were looking for it to be "as it should be"?

Manual QC to find the problem lenses would be extremely time consuming.

I agree. But during manufacturing QC is not "after the fact manual for each and every lens", it is part of a process, and not every copy gets tested, you are supposed to do statistical testing, and if two out of three copies were not acceptable to tashley or Zoran statistical testing should have caught that easily.

And because something is expensive, doesn't mean that it has high margin. They're expensive to make.

I agree as a general rule. But please take look back at my comment at 50% off sales and Sony very unlikely to be doing that at loss. Which means margin needed for better QC is there.

I don't excuse the manufacturers at all but I do pity them.

Sometimes I do pity manufacturers as many things that are non-issues get blown out of proportions but sometimes I don't pity them at all and pity consumers (for example: sensor oil issues on Nikon D600).

 

[ZoranC]

You know, I don't even know how to start but you are entering into the world of POOR quality control by Sony. I've never seen anything quite like it.... I'm done with Sony/Zeiss lenses. Wouldn't consider owning their zoom and won't buy any more primes.

Victor, thank you for your input. Would you mind please sharing what was your (sounds like bad) experience with Sony lenses?

 

[philip_pj]

A key aspect to the matter is that no one outside the makers really knows the 'fail rate', however it is measured. We can also expect a huge variation in the judgments of buyers as they range from the extremely picky to the blase, and I am guessing most web forum members - being enthusiasts - are closer to the former than the latter, and they are often early adopters to boot, when defects are most likely to surface.

Two other factors loom large:

In the web era bad news travels fast and hard, good news crawls along at snail's pace and keeps its own counsel. One can only guesstimate the number of disaffected buyers at his peril, and 'becoming aware of posts' won't pass any validity test in a statistical muster.

High megapixel cameras have given more exacting consumers much more powerful forensic means in the search for perfection, which as Brian Ferry so rightly pointed out, goes on and on. Seek and ye shall too often find.

Market capitalism has its own checks and balances of course - a maker with an excessively high return rate loses profitability and reputation quickly. You might expect a feedback loop to result in better process design and QC. If expectations are rising, you could expect this to happen in a short period of time. These are all general statements as they apply to all manufacturers, even Toyota who today find themselves relieved of a considerable sum (!)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actually the thread should be renamed to Why the camera industry lack of quality control. No OEM is immune to this unfortunately. I have owned just about every system out there and it has become a buy 3 return 2 industry. Hate to say it but the only system I have seen better quality is in tech cam lenses and even there problems exist. I honestly can't say I had a system that was free from a mechanically, optically or electronically issue of some sort. I worked in the Aerospace business for many years in the avionics arena and there everything was so much better but it had to be. Here no one dies over it.

 

[Slingers]

Slingers, while your post has tone of trolling bait I will for now give you benefit of a doubt and just say one doesn't need images from me that illustrate the problem. Those that know what optical misalignment is know what it looks like. Plus, they were not requested from those that reported issues with their copies on this very forum before, thus there is no need that you demand them in such manner from me either.

Sorry I think you took my post the wrong way. What I was after was seeing your real world images to see for myself the quality of your lens so I could make a judgement. I agree with everyone that no lens maker is without fault and sometimes some shocking examples make it for sale.