Returning 'bad copies' of lenses

Dave has been very civil in this thread and I commend him for that.
Thanks, I will attempt to remain as civil as possible, but I had to point out that you continue to not disclose the source of your info/expertise :) :)
Which has no relevancy to the conversation at hand, other than being a curiosity for some individuals as it won't change the facts or my opinion.
 
I've never seen proof posted on the internet of a single legitimate and verifiable case of "decentering". If the armchair experts on the net mounted the lens in the test jig and lasered it they would find it to be within factory specs.
Right - the factory specs that haven't apparently been updated since film days. "Within spec" as determined by Nikon service currently allows for image quality variation that is easily visible at 12 MP resolution on FX format... I have posted examples of this on this forum, while you typically provide no evidence or the source of your qualifications. Your past statements disclose that you are somehow in the camera industry, but you won't say how. Are you a Nikon employee who denies working for Nikon? Who knows.
Dave, I think you know better than this. Nikon's specs and standards are revised and updated using current industry technology when a major overhaul of standardised feature are implemented. Each model lens has its very own testing jig so that it can be aligned using state-of-art equipment. Nikon's lens manufacturing, calibration equipment, and highly trained technicians are the best in the optics industry. Each production run is exact;y as the last and the ones in the future will also be the same. I will just say if you feel comfortable thinking Nikon's standards and published specifications and alignment procedures are antiquated, that's your option. I think we both know better.
OK, but even they are updated, they are by their own admission (manager phone conversation with me, certainly with others as well) not mated to the D3x resolution, or even to the D3s resolution. They appear to be based on perhaps a printed 8x12 or 11x17, which is well below what the camera can reveal. Your statement is not exclusive with my findings.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
Dave has been very civil in this thread and I commend him for that.
Thanks, I will attempt to remain as civil as possible, but I had to point out that you continue to not disclose the source of your info/expertise :) :)
Which has no relevancy to the conversation at hand, other than being a curiosity for some individuals as it won't change the facts or my opinion.
Your facts/statements which are self contradictory. You can't deny to be a Nikon employee and yet have full access to high level sensitive info that you have claimed to have. I won't bother repeating today... anyone interested can search our past threads. Without some provenance that you have never provided, your claims and facts remain quite unfounded.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
I've never seen proof posted on the internet of a single legitimate and verifiable case of "decentering". If the armchair experts on the net mounted the lens in the test jig and lasered it they would find it to be within factory specs.
Right - the factory specs that haven't apparently been updated since film days. "Within spec" as determined by Nikon service currently allows for image quality variation that is easily visible at 12 MP resolution on FX format... I have posted examples of this on this forum, while you typically provide no evidence or the source of your qualifications. Your past statements disclose that you are somehow in the camera industry, but you won't say how. Are you a Nikon employee who denies working for Nikon? Who knows.
Dave, I think you know better than this. Nikon's specs and standards are revised and updated using current industry technology when a major overhaul of standardised feature are implemented. Each model lens has its very own testing jig so that it can be aligned using state-of-art equipment. Nikon's lens manufacturing, calibration equipment, and highly trained technicians are the best in the optics industry. Each production run is exact;y as the last and the ones in the future will also be the same. I will just say if you feel comfortable thinking Nikon's standards and published specifications and alignment procedures are antiquated, that's your option. I think we both know better.
OK, but even they are updated, they are by their own admission (manager phone conversation with me, certainly with others as well) not mated to the D3x resolution, or even to the D3s resolution. They appear to be based on perhaps a printed 8x12 or 11x17, which is well below what the camera can reveal. Your statement is not exclusive with my findings.
I think the problem here is somehow you think your findings are exclusive with the multitude of pro photographers that disagree with you. Their lenses and D3x bodies are working fine.
 
Dave has been very civil in this thread and I commend him for that.
Thanks, I will attempt to remain as civil as possible, but I had to point out that you continue to not disclose the source of your info/expertise :) :)
Which has no relevancy to the conversation at hand, other than being a curiosity for some individuals as it won't change the facts or my opinion.
Your facts/statements which are self contradictory. You can't deny to be a Nikon employee and yet have full access to high level sensitive info that you have claimed to have. I won't bother repeating today... anyone interested can search our past threads. Without some provenance that you have never provided, your claims and facts remain quite unfounded.
I sure can deny it. Nothing says I can't parrot what I hear around the "watercooler", so to speak... :)
 
I'm not going to read this whole thread, but let me put my two cents in please.

I've never had a problem with a Nikon lens (only ever owned 3 through) however I bought a Tamron 17-50 and heard bad things about it autofocussing so tested it. I thought there was a problem with the AF, so posted my results on this forum. The usual suspects of deniers told me that it wasn't the lens, there's no such thing as a 'bad copy' of a lens, told me it was a bad test and user error. I believed them because I'm trying to learn here, and some of these people profess to have so much experience I thought 'Who am I to argue with seasoned photographers?' Subsequently, after taking their advice and believing I was the problem I went through hell testing that freaking lens! I took literally hundreds of pictures with that lens, trying to see if it was just me or the lens. I posted more images on the forum, people told me to try this, try that, I lost sleep. I was totally unhappy that, even when I was just out and using it I got unsatisfying images. People told me 'This is what happens when you have a fast zoom- it's much more dificult to use.' Ok, I thought, I have never had an f2.8 zoom before. But hang on, I have a 50mm f1.8 prime and never had a problem.

In the end, the conclusion I came to was a simple one: taking pictures should not be this difficult. It was never been this difficult before, and I don't know why it should be now.

I took the lens back to the shop, they sent it back to Tamron, and after some fighting and arguing the service report came back saying the lens was front focussing and had a misaligned element. It would cost 7000yen to fix. I told them to get knotted, it's a brand new lens and demanded a replacement. They gave me a replacement and it's lovely! Focus is dead on and sharp from wide open. Looks like this:





At the end of the day, this forum is an awesome place to learn, but please take everything that people say with a pinch of salt. No matter how much experience people profess to have, and no matter how strongly they push their opinions, they may be very wrong.
--
http://dailybento.webs.com/
I really do have to start trying to be a bit nicer to people on here.
 
I think the problem here is somehow you think your findings are exclusive with the multitude of pro photographers that disagree with you. Their lenses and D3x bodies are working fine.
Well, plenty of pro photographers do agree with me, and it's a problem that exists on both Canon and Nikon... On the other hand, many pro photographers operate from a newspaper/internet type attitude in which you shoot direct to JPEG and print only at the lowest possible quality, so they have no reason to care. There's a lot of range in "pro photography," so of course many won't care. In fact, some take pride in not caring, which is bad for photographers from a consumer standpoint.

You like to deny some pretty hard evidence. For example, you deny simple, obvious things like this that Nikon will usually fix as calibration:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=26997584

And I am not the only one to have identified a lens that does that. Others have posted lenses that do the same, which Nikon did ultimately fix, and you've read those posts so don't make me dig them up :)

And the way you criticize Lloyd is fairly transparent, because, like him or not, it's clear that he has an engineer's mind and is very good with facts and research. He does a good bit of fact-based truthing, and it's pretty bad for your side of this argument.

You also try to deny the numerous worldwide reports of AF issues on the early shipments of 24G. Example: on my second of two early 24G samples I have a written acknowledgement from Nikon, discussed on this board previously, in which Nikon admits reproducing the AF failures on that copy of the lens and one belonging to another person. They never disclosed the core issue, but low and behold the one I got with a significantly later serial number (and on that lens a few hundred is significant due to low volume) does respond to AF Fine Tune, which the one I sent to Nikon did not. A lens that lacks a clear AF Fine Tune response to a Leonard-compatible target on a tripod-mounted camera is simply broken. You can disparage my experience and those of people like me all you want, but the reality for others to see is that we bring actual experience, and all you bring is apologist conjecture.

And mock the flashlight issue all you want, but Nikon did care enough to fix it. The current copies of that lens look way better. Keep in mind that I agreed with you that it was a non-issue functionally, but having a clean baffle will protect the resale value of the lens down the line. The copies that show the ugly baffle will be more difficult to sell at top eBay values.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
People who claim to run into bad samples of high quality lenses (i.e. Nikon, Zeiss, etc.) generally a) have unrealistic expectations of the lens' quality,
Ilkka - By saying that, you imply that the expectations are too high and thus that the lens disappoints, or at least some of them do. Sounds as if you're making an implicit admission that the sample variation does exist. And if it exists, there is a fairness issue as to whether you should expect yourself to keep a mediocre or bad one when an exchange would get you one that fulfills the manufacturer's marketing claims. Fortunately sales/marketing claims are somewhat binding and do provide a shield for the consumer to make a return and get another.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
I think the problem here is somehow you think your findings are exclusive with the multitude of pro photographers that disagree with you. Their lenses and D3x bodies are working fine.
And the way you criticize Lloyd is fairly transparent, because, like him or not, it's clear that he has an engineer's mind and is very good with facts and research. He does a good bit of fact-based truthing, and it's pretty bad for your side of this argument.
Lloyd might have an "engineer's mind" but he's not stupid when it comes to sending out the call to the mindless sheep that flock to his site for the sake of generating more coin from the web hits. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit? Maybe he's simply irresponsible? After reading statements like this I wonder.

"Nikon 24mm f/1.4G scarcity thoughts — production suspended?"

Yep, he's simply assuming or is he stoking the fire to put more fuel on? Okay, he admits it's his wild guess. I still see him raking the coals with this statement.

"Has Nikon perhaps temporarily suspended production because of the autofocus issue? That’s just my own wild guess, having no factual basis. But it seems to fit the situation. "

Now the hot coals are ready to stack more fuel on. He outdoes himself with this gem.

"It’s disappointing that Nikon is publicly silent on this widespread autofocus problem, the worst I’ve ever seen. Is Nikon aiming to be the Toyota of lenses? My Nikon PR and service contacts have not responded to my email or phone inquiry. "

Yep! There goes a hot mushroom cloud! He's claiming a "widespread autofocus problem" in the same breath he's claiming scarcity of the lens. How can that be?

I really love the "Toyota" comparison. It kind of fits perfectly. Toyota didn't release an official statement till they had all the facts. Once all the facts were gathered they could not find any evidence of an actual hardware/software related problem. Of course this wasn't good enough, so an official government investigation was launched. What was the results? Toyota cleared as there was no hard evidence of mechanical failure. Seems we have a lot of pilot error or a bunch of rolled up aftermarket floor mats.. :) What does this have to do with Nikon? I see a pattern here. Nikon didn't release an official statement of the non-issue till they were forced to by the mass-hysteria created by the web-idiots and flashlight wielders. Again, Nikon proved there were no issues with the 70-200 VRII, as well as the 24/1.4.

Seems an analytical and engineer's mind such as Lloyd's wouldn't allow him to make these false assumptions without factual evidence and thorough scientific lab standard testing. Oh, wait!! He only had one sample of the 24/1.4. ;)

All of this while he sits back in a dark room scratching and digging at a haemorrhoid wondering why "My Nikon PR and service contacts have not responded to my email or phone inquiry. "

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2010-05-blog.html#blog20100511Nikon24Scarcity
And mock the flashlight issue all you want, but Nikon did care enough to fix it. The current copies of that lens look way better. Keep in mind that I agreed with you that it was a non-issue functionally, but having a clean baffle will protect the resale value of the lens down the line. The copies that show the ugly baffle will be more difficult to sell at top eBay values.
What did Nikon fix? I looked through an old AI Nikkor from the 80s a while back and saw this same "pitting" if the lens was held a certain way, but was totally invisible with the naked eye. And the baffles were of higher quality back then.. Nikon didn't fix or change anything. :)
 
What did Nikon fix? I looked through an old AI Nikkor from the 80s a while back and saw this same "pitting" if the lens was held a certain way, but was totally invisible with the naked eye. And the baffles were of higher quality back then.. Nikon didn't fix or change anything. :)
I've viewed at least four later copies of the 70-200 VR2, and they all had baffles that were 95 percent better than my early copy. Which is to say that they were not "perfect," but the amount of pitting was numerically hard to notice. My first one had many pits... Looks like Nikon wanted to put an end to the complaints.

As to your remark about the naked eye, that was the problem with the VR2: in its case, the pitting was easily visible to the naked eye, even without a flashlight. The flashlight just added the extra ridiculous dimension of the alleged "sparklies," which as far as I can tell are really just reflections of interior light absorption material/coatings.

All you said about Lloyd: Ya, he's got a bit of showman and temper in him, but the overall body of his work is good if you bother to read it. The catch of course is that you have to pay. I paid, and the site is a really good read. The most valuable thing is that he shoots some of the same subject matter over and over again so you get a very good representation of the different character of various lenses with which he does it.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
It's your money - why take the chance?
Exactly! I have no worries dropping $10K on a Nikkor sight unseen and feeling comfortable that when I open the case it will perform as it was designed. In the unlikely event it doesn't it will be rectified immediately with one phone call.
Thank you. So you acknowledge a Nikkor can indeed not perform as it was designed. Whether it can be rectified with a single phone call is non-consequential. The important thing is, bad copies do exist.
I'm not seeing a problem here, at least the one you think you are seeing.
Correct it for you: I'm seeing, not "I think" I'm seeing. Stop pretending to be a psychology expert.
 
Bjorn Rorslett is also a pro photographer and the sample variation of the 17-35/2.8 is acknowledged on his website.
Did he drop it? All Nikkors are fully tested leave the factory within published specifications.
When someone claims a Nikkor has sample variation you cast a doubt on his credibility by questioning whether he dropped the lens? Nice try.
Sorry, but I've heard too many excuses of how things mysteriously got damaged by themselves. We all heard of the 24-70/2.8 falling apart by itself, water or liquid behind the LCD screen of the D3, and a host of other ridiculous issues we read on the net. All of which seem to happen to a select group of people. :)
So do you believe Bjorn Rorslett belongs to this select group of people? Please give me a simple answer: Yes or No.
 
A big thanks for these instructions.

I wasn't suggesting to the original poster that I knew how to test a lens myself,
so I'm glad you have taken the trouble of explaining it all here.

Kind regards.
You're welcome! But I wouldn't say that's all... It's just a reasonable start. I can offer a bit more about my favorite two ways to find the correct AF Fine Tune value for a lens (btw, sorry I interchange "fine tune" and "micro adjust," because I can never remember which term is Canon and which is Nikon, but I mean same thing by it).

First, when you're in a hurry, this is the quick and dirty way to get an OK fine tune value:

1. Put camera on tripod, point at an easy target, a target that complies with the camera manual warnings about AF and would make Leonard happy (choosing a target that Leonard would approve of is the most important thing, because otherwise Leonard will declare your entire process invalid! ;-)).

2. Put the camera in Live View, and use Contrast Detect AF to focus on the target. The logic here is that Contrast Detect when on a tripod is generally the most accurate thing of which the camera is capable, and, more importantly, Contrast Detect AF is absolutely exempt from the type of calibration error that you're trying to offset in the phase detect system.

3. Turn off Live View, and, while looking at the distance/focus scale on the lens, auto focus the camera the normal way. If the focus scale does not move, it means there was no difference between Contrast Detect and regular AF (aka phase detect), which means you're done! If however it moved, that means the regular AF was off, and you need to enter a value. You can tell whether the value needs to be postive or negative based on the direction the focus scale moved.

4. Enter a value based on the movement you saw, and repeat these steps until there is no movement between contrast detect and phase detect.

The reason that is the "quick" method is that it eliminates having to retreat to a computer to evaluate the files, which is method 2. Also with the quick method, lenses that have very short focus throw might move a slight amount without you noticing.

So, the slower, better way is this:

1. Step 1 same as above.

2. Turn on AF Fine Tune, and set to -20.

3. Take 5 shots, using the manual focus ring to defocus after each shot, so that you know for sure each shot is a new focus attempt on part of the camera. For best results, shoot NEF.

4. Move your AF Fine Tune setting to -15, and repeat step 3, and so forth in 5 point increments until you get to AF Fine Tune setting of 20. This should give you 45 shots per lens tested.

5. On a computer, evaluate the NEF files. Be sure to actually render them as NEF, and do not view them using the embedded preview JPEGs, because the embedded preview in a NEF file is lossy to save space. As an alternative to viewing them as rendered NEF, you could convert them to hi-rez JPEG or TIFF to get the benefit of whatever steps you normally do during conversion... Now look for two things: Look for the setting at which the image quality is best. Because the variations can be very slight, it is entirely possible that you might find a tie, which would indicate the best value actually lying between those two 5-point intervals. If you do this to all your lenses, depending on which you have, you may also see that some lenses react more strongly to fine tune on a per-point-of-adjustment basis than do others; this is normal... The second thing you want to look for in my opinion gives you a more accurate read on the correct setting for a lens: Look at the entire range of shots, and try to find the outer point at which the shots are equally bad . In other words, does -10 suck equally with +20? If so, this might help point you to a value of +5 for the lens; by looking for the center of the lenses adjustment continuum on a wider basis, you can corroborate what you think is the absolute best value. This also helps average out the effect of shot-to-shot focus variations, and can help point to odd values like +3 that don't fall on your 5-point test interval. Some lenses may demand retesting at single-point intervals to get the absolute best setting, but in my opinion that is rare, with 5 points being more than adequate.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
Some amazing statements and beliefs here. One example:
i've bought a few lenses over the last few years and i've never returned one.

I just get it and shoot with it..not sure why people go to all the trouble of testing and then doing more tests instead of using the lens normally.
I bought a Tokina 11-16 shortly after they were introduced, thought myself lucky to snag one. And against all of the prevailing wisdom of the FLDs (faulty lens deniers), I tested it and it performed fine. BTW, the reason people test is to make sure their images are commercially viable and to (not always successfully) prevent what ultimately happened to me.

Read on.

On Saturday of the same week, with the lens having not been used in the interim, it stopped being able to acquire focus (in either auto or manual mode) in the middle of a paid shoot . It had not been dropped or mishandled in any way, it just quit delivering in-focus pix. My guess is that something inside the lens shifted. After I sent it back, I learned that sample variation among this model was reaching epic proportions. I did not bother to try another.

I had to go back and reshoot some of the images with a different lens because I was foolish enough to put all my eggs in the Tokina basket on that day. Thank goodness no models or other people were involved.

One of my Nikon lenses was not producing acceptably sharp images either, but a new copy took care of that. Again, lens was tested and found wanting. Better to have the lens rejected by me than to have its images rejected by a photo editor, eh?

Now the rest of my lenses have performed just fine, some even better after being cleaned and serviced by Nikon (the 12-24 comes to mind). But bad (misadjusted, decentered, etc) lenses do exist. To state otherwise is to deny reality.
 
I don't know who in that response chain claims that bad copies don't exist, definitely not me. Never the less, it is ridiculous to claim that one has to go trough many lenses to find one good one. In my experience testing a lens in a shop is enough and even buying one without testing. As long as I know the lens I am getting is not one of the returned "second hand" lenses, I am confident and trust the warranty if needed.

Of course bad lenses exist, just like bad cars, even if bought brand new. That fact does not give anyone the right to return a car and get a new one in case a problem is detected after you have taken the car home. So why are we so hysterical about lenses? Why do people expect 100% error free production and QC in lenses when the very same people can take a car for several tens of thousand dollars and just drive home with it? Because there is a warranty which takes care of problems. That's what it is for. Anyway, if a dealer would take back a car which has been taken out of the shop by another customer no one would buy that car as a new one, that's for sure. So, why this paranoia about lenses?
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
 
as when Nikon has a large amount of returns, Nikon just puts them back into stock and sells them back to us! Likely they never leave the retailer and they just resell them as new, so we are buying returned lenses with imagined problems!
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
Ahem. But Mr Lagrange, according to your first post in this discussion, 'There is no such thing as "bad copies" of a lens'. So lenses never fail to perform correctly out of the box, right? So how do you know that these non-existent problems can be fixed with one phone call?

Perhaps your original statement was a little, shall we say, exaggerated?
 
In fact, 2 US auto companies (GM and Dodge) have recently instituted "60 day return - no questions asked" programs. So, the premise of your argument is not totally sound.

Here's the way I see it: If I buy any consumer product and, once I get it home, it immediately becomes obvious that the product is defective, then I expect to be able to return it to the place of purchase. On day one, it's just not reasonable to burden ME with the manufacturer's failure to do proper quality control. I don't see how anyone could dispute this.

If I own and use the lens for a while, and a problem arises, then, yes, I will send the lens in per the manufacturer's warranty policy. In fact, I've done this with 2 of my Nikkor lenses, and Nikon has fixed them.

Maybe there are people who abuse this model, but I bet most consumers do not. And, a company must set its policies to protect the majority of its customers and keep them happy. Both B&H and Nikon seem to understand this quite well.

What absolutely mystifies me is how others on this thread can't seem to accept it, going so far as to deny the very existence of defective lenses in the retail channel. -iwbs
I don't know who in that response chain claims that bad copies don't exist, definitely not me. Never the less, it is ridiculous to claim that one has to go trough many lenses to find one good one. In my experience testing a lens in a shop is enough and even buying one without testing. As long as I know the lens I am getting is not one of the returned "second hand" lenses, I am confident and trust the warranty if needed.

Of course bad lenses exist, just like bad cars, even if bought brand new. That fact does not give anyone the right to return a car and get a new one in case a problem is detected after you have taken the car home. So why are we so hysterical about lenses? Why do people expect 100% error free production and QC in lenses when the very same people can take a car for several tens of thousand dollars and just drive home with it? Because there is a warranty which takes care of problems. That's what it is for. Anyway, if a dealer would take back a car which has been taken out of the shop by another customer no one would buy that car as a new one, that's for sure. So, why this paranoia about lenses?
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top