The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony's (lack of?) lens quality control

iiiNelson

Well-known member
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.
Agreed on some level. Even Leica has had quite a few problems with the 50 APO-Summicron and it costs about $7500.
 

ZoranC

New member
Actually the thread should be renamed to Why the camera industry lack of quality control. No OEM is immune to this unfortunately.
That very well may be the case. My post was not meant to single out Sony, I was discussing Sony lenses just because that is what I am currently dealing with. My experience with Nikon lenses hasn't been flawless but I haven't had anywhere near this much issues. Could it be that I would have same kind of experience with Nikon's if I was not using 12MP body with them but 36MP one? Possibly but I can't speculate on that. All I am trying to do is find out is my experience with this particular setup common or unusual.

I have owned just about every system out there and it has become a buy 3 return 2 industry.
... which is sad. And part of it is, I feel, due to bed industry made for itself and now they have to lay in it. First, they are focused on throwing new models on the market without stopping to address what was wrong with previous ones, not even when it is a firmware feature. Next, they keep raising MP count but didn't give themselves enough time to address demand increase on manufacturing tolerances etc that will result in.

I honestly can't say I had a system that was free from a mechanically, optically or electronically issue of some sort.
I don't think we are looking for something that is perfect or very close to perfect. But question has to be raised when enough is enough and when too much is too much. Especially because resellers are far from happy, to a point of punishing customer, when we return them more than one copy. They want us to just bend over and take it regardless of what kind of quality manufacturer is pumping out, to pay with our hard earned money if manufacturer is doing sub-par job.
 

ZoranC

New member
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 might have but I still don't see how is that in any way related to my original post and what is there for you to "judge". But to defuse any further time wasting on that below you can find crop of upper right corner from "kinda OK" 55/1.8 copy on the left and "IMHO misaligned" copy on the right.

 

Viramati

Member
Initial testing on the FE24-70 seems to show it to be OK with no appreciable decentering. So it looks like I made it good with all 3 lenses first time round
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Victor, thank you for your input. Would you mind please sharing what was your (sounds like bad) experience with Sony lenses?
All of the Sony lenses I owned had serious decentering issues. One side would focus far the other near. Its not that I haven't had other lenses with those issues but never to that extent. A real shame for the Sony lenses since they have real potential.

Victor
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Originally Posted by stephengilbert
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 think the OP's topic is valid and encourage more discussion about QC. SG, you seem to be the one who is provoking, but it's not the first time. It so subjective as to how a photographer needs or wants a tool to function that the validity of their experience is not yours to ponder.
 
Last edited:

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
What's worrying me is that I'm waiting out the Sony wide angle, not sure however whether the heart ache of the testing and returning will be worth it in a country where it's probably going to be a special order lens. Maybe I shouldn't bother waiting and just get the Zeiss 18mm.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hmm,well, personally I haven't had a bad experience with Sony.
Nikon; problems (a while ago now),
Sigma; really good - never a problem
Tamron; dreadful
Leica: mostly good
Zeiss; 50-50
Olympus; excellent

I could go on - but lets face it, none of us present anything like a statistical sample - all manufacturers make good and bad copies of the same lens (read Roger Cicala's excellent articles linked above). It's the luck of the draw, and the 36mp sensor and all the publicity means that there is a whole lot of pixel peeping going on.
 

Viramati

Member
Well after a day out with the 24-70 I my copy does have some problems with it seeming to be softer on the left hand side on the wider settings (from 35-24) even at f8. Bummer
 

ZoranC

New member
Well after a day out with the 24-70 I my copy does have some problems with it seeming to be softer on the left hand side on the wider settings (from 35-24) even at f8. Bummer
I am sorry to hear that you too are having a bad experience. Lens being noticeably decentered even at F8 is IMHO definitely bad.
 

ZoranC

New member
... lets face it, none of us present anything like a statistical sample - all manufacturers make good and bad copies of the same lens (read Roger Cicala's excellent articles linked above). It's the luck of the draw ...
Arguments "none of us makes good statistical sample, it's the luck of the draw" have been used since ever in discussions like these. I am not statistician by profession, and I assume neither are you, and even though I do have some statistics training it is rusty, but I would like to suggest approach of such argument is flawed and that instead question should be phrased differently: "If five random customers pull three different random copies from different retailers at different time and each of those customers ends up with only one copy that passes their scrutiny is that just a bad luck or sign that it is very likely this is not isolated and that only one out of three lens out there will on average pass the scrutiny". I personally feel it's very likely it's the later and that bad luck has nothing to do with it.

... and the 36mp sensor and all the publicity means that there is a whole lot of pixel peeping going on.
Are you saying people should not test their gear thoroughly, that they should close one eye? Or you are saying that when manufacturers want you to get their camera because it's full frame 36 MP that they shouldn't assure rest of the components in the system are up to such ante and that it is OK if they are not? I don't know a single person that pays premium for certain features but is fine with it if they are not delivered. I wanted full frame and I wanted 36 MP. If I am actually fine with less than that then I wouldn't have bought A7R, I could have stayed with my NEX6 or my m43. Manufacturer that doesn't comprehend their customer base is bound to alienate their customers and consequently lose future business and end up in financial trouble.
 

BackToSlr

New member
"If five random customers pull three different random copies from different retailers at different time and each of those customers ends up with only one copy that passes their scrutiny is that just a bad luck or sign that it is very likely this is not isolated and that only one out of three lens out there will on average pass the scrutiny". I personally feel it's very likely it's the later and that bad luck has nothing to do with it.
ZoranC,

I am not the one to usually get in the way of a good rant, however, as someone who designs machine learning algorithms, where statistics is a necessary evil, I must point out that the sample set of 5 that you talk of is extremely skewed. It is well known most of online responses are when the user has found a problem. Very few of those who buy and are happy will post online, most of them will be quietly happy with their purchase. The sample set ends up being the 5 people who respond online (most of them are the ones who detect a problem). Additionally the users here also have their tolerances close to or tighter than the manufacturers tolerance.

That being said, I dont think any camera company is worse than Canon when it comes to manufacturing, having had to buy 4 lenses before 1 usable was found from a sample set of 1 :p

Cheers,

N
 

ZoranC

New member
ZoranC,

I am not the one to usually get in the way of a good rant, however, as someone who designs machine learning algorithms, where statistics is a necessary evil, I must point out that the sample set of 5 that you talk of is extremely skewed. It is well known most of online responses are when the user has found a problem. Very few of those who buy and are happy will post online, most of them will be quietly happy with their purchase. The sample set ends up being the 5 people who respond online (most of them are the ones who detect a problem). Additionally the users here also have their tolerances close to or tighter than the manufacturers tolerance.

That being said, I dont think any camera company is worse than Canon when it comes to manufacturing, having had to buy 4 lenses before 1 usable was found from a sample set of 1 :p

Cheers,

N
N,

#1 It is not a rant, it's a discussion, if I was actually ranting it would be very obvious, trust me.

#2 I am glad to hear you are familiar with statistics, thus you should know why this is not a sample set of 5. You can also consider following: What is there to assure us sample set it not much bigger but we just didn't hear about it? What makes you confident that we didn't hear about it because owners do know how to test for it, did test it, and it did pass the test? Could it be that people are having them without being aware there is an issue? Wouldn't be the first time.
 

jfirneno

Member
ZoranC,

I am not the one to usually get in the way of a good rant, however, as someone who designs machine learning algorithms, where statistics is a necessary evil, I must point out that the sample set of 5 that you talk of is extremely skewed. It is well known most of online responses are when the user has found a problem. Very few of those who buy and are happy will post online, most of them will be quietly happy with their purchase. The sample set ends up being the 5 people who respond online (most of them are the ones who detect a problem). Additionally the users here also have their tolerances close to or tighter than the manufacturers tolerance.

That being said, I dont think any camera company is worse than Canon when it comes to manufacturing, having had to buy 4 lenses before 1 usable was found from a sample set of 1 :p

Cheers,

N
N:

You've got a point we need more data. I'll add my experience. I've only got the 35 F2.8 and the 55 F1.8. Both appear to me to be well centered and of very high optical quality. I've also purchased several high end Sony lenses (A-mount 135 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8; E-mount 24 f1.8 & 50 f1.8, and won't count the Minolta lenses that were also very good) and only one had to be returned (the 70-200 f2.8 had a funky sliver of the coating inside the front optic). For the most part I think Sony is OK for QC, not great but OK. I do think that some retailers send returned lenses back out to other customers as new (won't mention any names).

Regards,
John
 

Viramati

Member
Have to say that I am having difficulty accurately assessing the 24-70.
Question.
1.Are others still finding it soft on edge/corners even when stopped down to F8 at the wide end of the range (24-32.
2. Does having OSS off make a difference to IQ when at higher shutter speeds. In other words is it better to have it switched off.
Thanks
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Have to say that I am having difficulty accurately assessing the 24-70.
Question.
1.Are others still finding it soft on edge/corners even when stopped down to F8 at the wide end of the range (24-32.
2. Does having OSS off make a difference to IQ when at higher shutter speeds. In other words is it better to have it switched off.
Thanks

1) Yes, but much less so than the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 - one thing to try: because of odd DOF and possible midl focus shift and changing field curvature effects, the wide end often has better edges at F4 than F8. Try it on a couple of scenes and see how yours is.
2) it seems not to make any difference I can see. It even seems fine with a tripod and OSS on. But I do try to remember to switch OSS off when using tripod or higher shutter speeds, just in case!
 
Top