Lenses: The good, the bad, the ugly

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's 17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

B & H is just not a mail order house. It has a very large presence in NY. I also sure they don't check the lenses before they ship. Don't blame B & H, they are only the middle man.
--SPUDDon't bend over in the garden Granny. Remember them taters have eyes.

What's the basis for your decision to consider a lens out of alignment?

What kind of tests do you perform? And... do you perform the same tests once you get the lenses back from repair? and do they pass those tests?

John

Mr Potato Head said:

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

B & H is just not a mail order house. It has a very large presence
in NY. I also sure they don't check the lenses before they ship.
Don't blame B & H, they are only the middle man.

--
SPUD
Don't bend over in the garden Granny. Remember them taters have eyes.

Click to expand...

I use Canon L series lenses and seem to have no problem. Got them all from Adorama via mailorder. What kind of issues do you have that cause them to be returned?

Regards,
Clay

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Note: I am reposting this reply, as originally was posted in error to another reply, and I am interested in your feedback.
----

What's the basis for your decision to consider a lens out of alignment?

What kind of tests do you perform? And... do you perform the same tests once you get the lenses back from repair? and do they pass those tests?

John

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

I too am interested in what tests you perform. I have just recently been through problems with lens and I have devised my own little test method but without a bench mark of some sort, I am not sure how to tell if a lens is up to the quality that was intended. My test is just about comparing the sharpness and color rendition of lens in comparison to other lens I have.

I recently sent back a Tokina 20-35 2.8 because the quality was terrrible. I am not sure if the lens was not up to spec or the lens is just not too good. I have since purchased both a Sigma 20-40 2.8 and a Nikon 17-35s 2.8 in an attempt to compare. I have run this same test on them and again I am left with questions. These two lens have performed much better than the Tokina, but the Nikon (which is about twice as expensive) only performs marginally better than the Sigma. Maybe the Nikon is not perfoming as well as it should or maybe the Sigma is just an equal lens. I just can't tell????

It's too bad that lens can't ship out with some standard test that you could use to see if your new purchase matches it and is up to design intent. I wonder how many people purchase a lens that is maybe not up to specs and just think that's how it is supposed to perform without ever knowing otherwise.

I've bought Canon L-series and Nikon pro lenses and never had to send one back. What are you finding wrong?

Regards,
Trent

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what he found wrong but I know what happened to me.

When I thought my D1 was not focusing correctly, I sent it and the 17-35 AFS back to Nikon so that they could adjust the camera with one of my lenses. The camera came back first with minor repairs for focusing and the 17-35 AFS came back later with major repairs.

I didn't think the lens was the problem, I thought it was the camera since the lens seemed to be just fine on my F100. Nikon had a different opinion.

I am considering sending my D1H in for servicing and, if I do, I think the 80-400 VR is going in to. Maybe they will find that the VR parts need to be adjusted!

Tony

Trent Mulkern said:

I've bought Canon L-series and Nikon pro lenses and never had to
send one back. What are you finding wrong?

Regards,
Trent

Click to expand...

I own a lot of Sigma EX lenses and compared them to Nikon equivalent to determine if I should pay more for Nikon or Sigma is good enough for my needs. After extensive tests (usually printed text, texture on the wall

and scene from my porch) I have determined that Sigma EX lenses are very close in sharpness to Nikon, not as contrasty overall but very close (actually depending on the lens) and definitely not as cold as Nikon.

I also own two Nikon lenses 60mm F2.8 and 85mm F1.8 and find them

the best but only for what they are designed to be used. Any other use and Sigma is just as good.

So my point is, it all depends how you use your lenses.
Most of the third party manufacturers design their lenses for certain use
and if you test them on something they are not designed to be used

you might get bad results. For example I tested my Sigma 17-35 and Nikon 17-35 on printed text and they both showed the same sharpness but Sigma had a lot more moiré. In reality when taking pictures in the room

I could not see any moiré. Now I have Sigma 15-30 and it has even more moiré when tested on printed text but again no moiré then used normally. And it has much less (or almost not at all) flare compared to Sigma 17-35 (I did not test Nikon for flare)

Would I normally be using 17-35 to take pictures of the printed page or macro or portrait? I don't think so. So I use it only on wide angle photos
and nothing else.

Happy shooting.

Eugene

Chris Swigert said:

I too am interested in what tests you perform. I have just
recently been through problems with lens and I have devised my own
little test method but without a bench mark of some sort, I am not
sure how to tell if a lens is up to the quality that was intended.
My test is just about comparing the sharpness and color rendition
of lens in comparison to other lens I have.

I recently sent back a Tokina 20-35 2.8 because the quality was
terrrible. I am not sure if the lens was not up to spec or the
lens is just not too good. I have since purchased both a Sigma
20-40 2.8 and a Nikon 17-35s 2.8 in an attempt to compare. I have
run this same test on them and again I am left with questions.
These two lens have performed much better than the Tokina, but the
Nikon (which is about twice as expensive) only performs marginally
better than the Sigma. Maybe the Nikon is not perfoming as well as
it should or maybe the Sigma is just an equal lens. I just can't
tell????

It's too bad that lens can't ship out with some standard test that
you could use to see if your new purchase matches it and is up to
design intent. I wonder how many people purchase a lens that is
maybe not up to specs and just think that's how it is supposed to
perform without ever knowing otherwise.

Click to expand...

I actually shot lots of boxes with text on a tripod inside and then I shot some houses in the neighborhood all on a tripod and I found the prints at 8x10 to be fairly similar. I did not find the moire problem but I would agree that the Nikon was just a little bit more contrasty (but I had to look real close to see it.) In terms of colors, I would agree that the Nikon was just a slight better in comparing the original scene with the prints but again, I had to look really close and I wouldn't characterize it as that much better.

Eugene Powers said:

I also own two Nikon lenses 60mm F2.8 and 85mm F1.8 and find them
the best but only for what they are designed to be used. Any other
use and Sigma is just as good.

So my point is, it all depends how you use your lenses.
Most of the third party manufacturers design their lenses for
certain use
and if you test them on something they are not designed to be used
you might get bad results. For example I tested my Sigma 17-35 and
Nikon 17-35 on printed text and they both showed the same sharpness
but Sigma had a lot more moiré. In reality when taking pictures in
the room
I could not see any moiré. Now I have Sigma 15-30 and it has even
more moiré when tested on printed text but again no moiré then used
normally. And it has much less (or almost not at all) flare
compared to Sigma 17-35 (I did not test Nikon for flare)
Would I normally be using 17-35 to take pictures of the printed
page or macro or portrait? I don't think so. So I use it only on
wide angle photos
and nothing else.

Happy shooting.

Eugene

Chris Swigert said:

I too am interested in what tests you perform. I have just
recently been through problems with lens and I have devised my own
little test method but without a bench mark of some sort, I am not
sure how to tell if a lens is up to the quality that was intended.
My test is just about comparing the sharpness and color rendition
of lens in comparison to other lens I have.

I recently sent back a Tokina 20-35 2.8 because the quality was
terrrible. I am not sure if the lens was not up to spec or the
lens is just not too good. I have since purchased both a Sigma
20-40 2.8 and a Nikon 17-35s 2.8 in an attempt to compare. I have
run this same test on them and again I am left with questions.
These two lens have performed much better than the Tokina, but the
Nikon (which is about twice as expensive) only performs marginally
better than the Sigma. Maybe the Nikon is not perfoming as well as
it should or maybe the Sigma is just an equal lens. I just can't
tell????

It's too bad that lens can't ship out with some standard test that
you could use to see if your new purchase matches it and is up to
design intent. I wonder how many people purchase a lens that is
maybe not up to specs and just think that's how it is supposed to
perform without ever knowing otherwise.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

any opinoins about the sigma14mm im thinking about getting one for digi_use or is tamaron as good?
does sombody have some sampels?

Anthony Medici said:

When I thought my D1 was not focusing correctly, I sent it and the
17-35 AFS back to Nikon so that they could adjust the camera with
one of my lenses. The camera came back first with minor repairs for
focusing and the 17-35 AFS came back later with major repairs.

I didn't think the lens was the problem, I thought it was the
camera since the lens seemed to be just fine on my F100. Nikon had
a different opinion.

I am considering sending my D1H in for servicing and, if I do, I
think the 80-400 VR is going in to. Maybe they will find that the
VR parts need to be adjusted!

Tony

Trent Mulkern said:

I've bought Canon L-series and Nikon pro lenses and never had to
send one back. What are you finding wrong?

Regards,
Trent

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ikaros said:

any opinoins about the sigma14mm im thinking about getting one
for digi_use or is tamaron as good?
does sombody have some sampels?

Click to expand...

I use the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on my D1X all the time, it is my favorite lens (and all my others are Nikon AFS lenses - except for a 35-70 f/2.8). This is the first non Nikon lens I have ever purchased and I am very impressed. The lens is very sharp and contrast is great. I don't think you can go wrong with this lens. It looks, feels and performs like a champ.

Here is a full frame recent photo using the Sigma 14mm.



----Rob

Chris Swigert wrote:
In terms of

Chris Swigert said:

colors, I would agree that the Nikon was just a slight better in
comparing the original scene with the prints but again, I had to
look really close and I wouldn't characterize it as that much
better.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but looking at a color print tells you virtually nothing about how a lens renders color. What it tells you is how the processor's color analyzing equipment works. There is an almost infinite range of possibilities for the color in any given photographic color print. There simply is no standard there by which to make a judgement about lens color rendition.

Shooting the same subject on the same roll of slide film from the same camera with two different lenses might give you a better idea, but this is still dubious.

Hope this helps,
Randy McMillan

not another flame b&h thread

f.u. bee nay you bee as perfect as your tests

John Davis said:

John

Mr Potato Head said:

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

B & H is just not a mail order house. It has a very large presence
in NY. I also sure they don't check the lenses before they ship.
Don't blame B & H, they are only the middle man.

--
SPUD
Don't bend over in the garden Granny. Remember them taters have eyes.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--beam me up scottyim giving it all shes got captain

For those of you wanting to know what I have found wrong, I will say the following. As with another poster here, I found out through trial and error, with sending things back to Nikon, that lenses that I originally thought were simply subpar were in fact out of alignment. I suspect that many people trudge along with lenses that they receive from the store, not knowing that they are out of alignment or need repair, or they proceed forward, forming an opinion (bad) about a lens that is, in fact, not performing up to par.

I have sent back three lenses within the past month. The first was a Nikon 28-105 that I felt was softer than acceptable. In addition, the macro switch on this lens was sticking. Nikon has not yet returned the lens, but a rep informed me that the lens needed a "major overhaul."

Another lens I returned was the Tokina 24-200, which developed a grinding noise when it focused.

Yet another lens that had to be returned was the Nikon 28-70, a very expensive lens. The motor that drives the focusing of this lens simply died out. Well, it actually started making a soft grinding noise, and then after some time the lens simply refused to focus.

Soon, I will send in a Nikon 60 mm micro lens because it is too soft for such a lens.

In short, I do not have an objective test that I use to evaluate lenses. My subjective evaluation is enough for me, and it proves accurate a surprising number of times. Basically, I purchase good quality lenses -- although you may question my purchase of the Nikon 28-105. In any case, when I find I leave a lens in my case more than the price warrants, the reason is usually because I have not found the performance of the lens to be satisfactory.

Trent Mulkern said:

Regards,
Trent

F. U. Bee said:

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that at least one of
every three lenses that I purchase must be sent back to the
manufacturer for adjustment. I am talking about good-quality lenses
from the major manufacturers, such as Nikon. I do not purchase
consumer-quality lenses.

Still, purchasing expensive lenses is, unfortunately, no guarantee
of quality--at least not the quality that the lenses are capable
of. My most recent example of this lesson occurred with Nikon's
17-35 AF-S lens.

My question to other photographers is this: how many of you make a
habit of sending lenses back to the manufacturers for adjustment or
repair?

As a final note, I will add that mail-order houses such as
B&H--which take plenty of returns--are particularly prone to ship
out lenses that ought to go back to the dealer before ever ending
up with a consumer. At least that is the hunch I'm working with. I
would say that one of every two lenses I have received from this
mail-order house must be returned to the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

F. U. Bee said:

I have sent back three lenses within the past month. The first was

Click to expand...

What are you doing to your poor equipment?

[email protected] http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com

Ray Bowers said:

F. U. Bee said:

I have sent back three lenses within the past month. The first was

Click to expand...

What are you doing to your poor equipment?
--
[email protected]
http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com

Click to expand...

He needn't be doing anything to his lenses, just buying them. My first zoom, a 24-85/f2.8, had a decentered element(s) out of the box; it's being repaired by Nikon with a major parts replacement. My "interim" zoom, a 28-105 from a different store, also had a decentered element and went back for a refund. A second sample, which had just arrived in the store, was much better and I've kept it. The difference between these two nominally identical lenses was obvious at a glance. A 50/1.4 prime also had a decentered element and went back for a refund. I'm waiting for a second sample to arrive. Both of the lenses which I returned are back on the shelf, waiting to be purchased by someone else, and when rewrapped carefully, the new owner would never know his shinny new lens had already been sold and rejected at least once. These were retail stores. Who knows what mail-order houses do?

All were Nikkors, but three out of four had real image problems, so F.U. Bee is actually doing rather well.

Jedi said:

Ray Bowers said:

F. U. Bee said:

I have sent back three lenses within the past month. The first was

Click to expand...

What are you doing to your poor equipment?
--
[email protected]
http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com

Click to expand...

He needn't be doing anything to his lenses, just buying them. My
first zoom, a 24-85/f2.8, had a decentered element(s) out of the
box; it's being repaired by Nikon with a major parts replacement.
My "interim" zoom, a 28-105 from a different store, also had a
decentered element and went back for a refund. A second sample,
which had just arrived in the store, was much better and I've kept
it. The difference between these two nominally identical lenses was
obvious at a glance. A 50/1.4 prime also had a decentered element
and went back for a refund. I'm waiting for a second sample to
arrive. Both of the lenses which I returned are back on the shelf,
waiting to be purchased by someone else, and when rewrapped
carefully, the new owner would never know his shinny new lens had
already been sold and rejected at least once. These were retail
stores. Who knows what mail-order houses do?

All were Nikkors, but three out of four had real image problems, so
F.U. Bee is actually doing rather well.

Click to expand...

I'm not doubting you, I would just like to know how you can identify specifically the problem was a "decentered element"?--Steve Mitchell http://mitchjaz.com/Boxcarmainpage

steve mitchell said:

Jedi said:

Ray Bowers said:

F. U. Bee said:

I have sent back three lenses within the past month. The first was

Click to expand...

What are you doing to your poor equipment?
--
[email protected]
http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com

Click to expand...

He needn't be doing anything to his lenses, just buying them. My
first zoom, a 24-85/f2.8, had a decentered element(s) out of the
box; it's being repaired by Nikon with a major parts replacement.
My "interim" zoom, a 28-105 from a different store, also had a
decentered element and went back for a refund. A second sample,
which had just arrived in the store, was much better and I've kept
it. The difference between these two nominally identical lenses was
obvious at a glance. A 50/1.4 prime also had a decentered element
and went back for a refund. I'm waiting for a second sample to
arrive. Both of the lenses which I returned are back on the shelf,
waiting to be purchased by someone else, and when rewrapped
carefully, the new owner would never know his shinny new lens had
already been sold and rejected at least once. These were retail
stores. Who knows what mail-order houses do?

All were Nikkors, but three out of four had real image problems, so
F.U. Bee is actually doing rather well.

Click to expand...

I'm not doubting you, I would just like to know how you can
identify specifically the problem was a "decentered element"?
--
Steve Mitchell
http://mitchjaz.com/Boxcarmainpage

Click to expand...

Stand perpendicular to a brick wall and shoot it at various apertures and zooms. Both sides of the image should be equally sharp since both are the same distance from you. The image may not be sharp wide open but both sides should be the same. I was finding that, except for the second 28-105, one side was always clearly softer than the other; on the zooms it was the left side, on the prime it was the right side so the problem was with the lenses, not the D1x. The imbalance disappeared by f11 because a large DOF overrode the defect. There may have been other things wrong with the lenses too, but the key point is the lenses weren't "right."