The lens is the only thing that means anything to me..... maybe that certificate has some significance for you...... just a piece of paper to me.So the QC certificate with some guy's signature does not mean much? :bugeyes:
Victor
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!
The lens is the only thing that means anything to me..... maybe that certificate has some significance for you...... just a piece of paper to me.So the QC certificate with some guy's signature does not mean much? :bugeyes:
It sure is a bombshell...... I have complained about lens quality for years only to fall on ears that thought I was just being too critical....skewed images, soft corners, sides out, a mid section soft, and from lenses that weren't $399.99 but more like $3999.99 and way beyond. The whole thing just pisses me off....:thumbdown: I'm convinced that many of the lens purchasers are either blind, don't know or don't care.I suggest anyone who cares about Sony read that blog several times word for word. It's a bombshell if you really care about quality.
Not just Sony, but you see Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, Nikon variations from a large sample of copies. Hopefully we will see some figures for M as well.
Also the F/4 and 5.6 and f/8 numbers will come eventually.
I thought I could cash that in when the lens is not what it was claimed to be?The lens is the only thing that means anything to me..... maybe that certificate has some significance for you...... just a piece of paper to me.
Victor
That's it exactly. We read these blogs and scratch our heads and get worried. The issue of QC is and always has been an issue with lens manufacturers.Yes every lens has copy variations. How much they vary, that is the question. Roger, who I cannot thank enough for all the time he puts into this, now has the numbers to show which are the worst offenders:
"The FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lenses are all over the place. It actually is a bit worse than the graphs look because a lot of the variance is WITHIN a copy, not just copy-to-copy. None of the 10 copies we tested had even corners. And I'll editorialize and say that none of the dozens we've tested on Imatest had even corners either. If you use this lens for centered objects, you'll be happy. If you want 4 sharp corners, it's not likely to happen unless your standards for equal sharpness are pretty low."
Roger.
So testing "in your usual shooting method" is not going to cut it really for some of us, who like Steve Huff, are all about the central subject, and don't really look hard at the edges much. But given the choice I imagine Steve would like the best copy too.
I suggest anyone who cares about Sony read that blog several times word for word. It's a bombshell if you really care about quality.
Not just Sony, but you see Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, Nikon variations from a large sample of copies. Hopefully we will see some figures for M as well.
Also the F/4 and 5.6 and f/8 numbers will come eventually.
Well..... not and keep the lens but for sure you can get your money back from either B&H or Amazon in the first 30 days.... just a real bummer considering how much money all of this stuff is. I have numerous posts regarding dismal lens quality and its like they hold us hostage.... where do we go? Its all hype and no show!!:thumbdown:I thought I could cash that in when the lens is not what it was claimed to be?
You are right...... there are no tabulated cases and never will be.... nobody gets killed from a lens unless its dropped from 50 feet onto their head:grin:. But this gets down to the crux of how lens manufacturer's think and its all about spewing this junk out until someone/everyone starts to rebel. If this was just an anomaly from cheap lenses it would be one thing but it isn't. They want the big bucks but deliver junk.....If the question is: Is Sony worse than others? As I posted, we don't know, and everything else is 100% conjecture. This isn't an automobile where user experiences are actively tabulated and published. If anyone is concerned that Sony is worse than others, I invite you to scan threads from Canon, Nikon etc. forums. From doing so myself, Turtle's "it looks like a duck" classic case is pretty universal.
It's really simple. Research lens. Buy lens. If you like the images in produces, you are golden. Everything else doesn't matter.
That sounds like a bunch of Zheiss certificates.Let's roll back to the A7r. Diglloyd has found that lack of EFCS (Electronic First Shutter Curtain) made it perform below pair at say 1/15 - 1/125s. But it still performed as a good 24MP camera. The loss of resolution caused by not using EFCS was not really observable, but clearly seen on MTF data. Now Sony has fixed the shutter vibration caused issues. Everyone is happy.
Before forking out the big bucks for that lens make sure you purchase it from someone who will take it back - no questions asked!! I owned one for one hour - just long enough to test it. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. A complete quadrant was out of alignment - really out of alignment! It wouldn't sharpen out until f6.3.:shocked: I was/still am flabbergasted and extremely disappointed in Zeiss QC. I sent it back. I hate buying lenses!!Would the Otus 85/1.4 be the ultimate solution? Possibly but weight and costs also matter…
Best regards
Erik
... as you noted above, all of the top rated lenses are tested on Nkon D8x0 and Sony A7r 36mp sensors, while they've tested Canon lenses on nothing more than 22mp sensors. If and when (?) they ever test a lens on a 50mp Canon sensor, the list of highest ranked may well get re-shuffled quite a bit, and a number of Sony lenses may drop out of the oft-mentioned top ten ranking. In the meantime, DxO is likely giving Sony/Zeiss/Nikon/Sigma lenses a nice (if not entirely earned) sales boost with so many people, even some respected photography blogs, quoting their "highest ranked" as if it were something reliable.Also, DxO-mark has tested and it is the highest ranked lens regarding sharpness in their tests.
I sold my Sony 35 1.4 yesterday. I tested it again and that left side of mine just bugged me . Mine is actually pretty good to but I sent the buyer my tests so he knows exactly what he is getting. I'm waiting for a Batis 35 F2 but in the meantime I need something so I bout a new Tamron 35 1.8 canon mount a metabones and I snuck in a Canon 135 f2 used in there.
Both focal lengths I'm waiting to see what Sony does but I need to work too so I need something to get me through the night.
I'll post my test on this Tammy it's rated very good. Who knows I may wind up buying the 35 Sony again but I'm going to test the heck out of it.
Honestly for 1700 it was bugging me even though shooting might mean nothing.
... as you noted above, all of the top rated lenses are tested on Nkon D8x0 and Sony A7r 36mp sensors, while they've tested Canon lenses on nothing more than 22mp sensors. If and when (?) they ever test a lens on a 50mp Canon sensor, the list of highest ranked may well get re-shuffled quite a bit, and a number of Sony lenses may drop out of the oft-mentioned top ten ranking. In the meantime, DxO is likely giving Sony/Zeiss/Nikon/Sigma lenses a nice (if not entirely earned) sales boost with so many people, even some respected photography blogs, quoting their "highest ranked" as if it were something reliable.
It caught my attention that the 35 tends to have a bad side or corner.I sold my Sony 35 1.4 yesterday. I tested it again and that left side of mine just bugged me . ....