Returning 'bad copies' of lenses

Vince Lagrange said:

tarnish said:

Vince Lagrange said:

Vince Lagrange said:

Vince Lagrange said:

There's no such thing as "bad copies" of a lens,

Click to expand...

We're looking forward to seeing the supporting test data. If you don't have it for every lens ever made, we'll entertain statistical arguments based on a sampling of, say, 5%.

Click to expand...

I've never seen proof posted on the internet of a single legitimate and verifiable case of "decentering".

Click to expand...

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

You ought to log out of dpreview more often.

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm

Click to expand...

Since when did Canon start making lenses for Nikon? Nice try at a diversion. Canon has always had QA problems with their lenses and it is widely accepted that sample variation amongst L glass is wider than the Grand Canyon. Like I said, nobody has yet posted indisputable proof that this so called "decentering" even exists on Nikon manufactured glass. Someone in this thread pointed out problems with Sigma, no surprise here. Now run off and find me a "decentered" Nikkor....

Click to expand...

From the DPR test of the new Nikkor 16~35

"Our studio tests show that our review sample of the 16-35mm suffers from softness when shot wide open at 35mm (but not at other focal lengths), and the samples below illustrate how this looks in practice. At first sight it would be easy to dismiss this as user error - perhaps a touch of shake, or slight misfocus - but the asymmetry of the effect, with the top left corner clearly worse than the rest of the frame, betrays it as a lens issue."

Photozone has references to decentered Nikkors too.

How many do you want?

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Hey, I just realized - maybe there's really no need to argue anymore.

When discerning buyers are sold a defective lens, they will return it to the vendor. Defective lenses will be resold and resold until, at last, they end up in the hands of oblivious buyers who, apparently, don't give a sh*t about being sold a crappy lens (or believe such an event to be impossible).

It's a near perfect system under which all parties (discerning buyers, oblivious buyers, vendors, and Nikon) wind up more or less happy. -iwbs

ROFL. Nice.

So basically you're saying Vince has always gotten the returned bad copies and is happy as a clam, LOL.

http://www.sugarmountainphotography.com/

iwannabesedated said:

Hey, I just realized - maybe there's really no need to argue anymore.

When discerning buyers are sold a defective lens, they will return it to the vendor. Defective lenses will be resold and resold until, at last, they end up in the hands of oblivious buyers who, apparently, don't give a sh*t about being sold a crappy lens (or believe such an event to be impossible).

It's a near perfect system under which all parties (discerning buyers, oblivious buyers, vendors, and Nikon) wind up more or less happy. -iwbs

Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying for a while now, as earlier in this thread, except that I don't think it's perfect (other than from a slightly cynical viewpoint). The only real winner in the scenario is Nikon, who can use their bully power over the resellers to twist this scenario to their advantage. The discerning customers lose more time than ever checking lenses (because megapixels go up while QC stays the same), and the resellers feel too much pressure and start getting grumpy.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead

DKX said:

So basically you're saying Vince has always gotten the returned bad copies and is happy as a clam, LOL.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss, for some. -iwbs

Interesting article:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

stormwarning43 said:

Interesting article:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

Click to expand...

Be sure not to miss the followup article:

https://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead

iwannabesedated said:

In fact, 2 US auto companies (GM and Dodge) have recently instituted "60 day return - no questions asked" programs.

Click to expand...

I guess it just proofs that they are desperate in trying to sell cars. The Amarican motor industry is in real trouble, it’s no secret for anyone.

iwannabesedated said:

So, the premise of your argument is not totally sound.

Click to expand...

Not sound? Would you buy a car with 4000km in it and pay the price of the brand new one, perhaps used and abused by a dog/cat/kids/chain smoker family? I would not. And if you believe that you won't pay for those returned cars every time you buy a new one and don't return it than you are naive. Someone will pay for the loss and it won’t be Dodge or GM but you, the customer.

Boy I am happy not to live in the US...

iwannabesedated said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is it you expect to find on day one which you can’t find in the shop? I mean seriously, if it is a DOA than it is a DOA in the shop as well. Why would you need to drive all the way home just to conclude it's a DOA? To me that sounds nonsense. To test a lens in a shop takes a few minutes, after that it should work and if it breaks down that it is a case for warranty.

iwannabesedated said:

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.

Click to expand...

iwannabesedated said:

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.

Click to expand...

Of course the majority of people don't abuse things, but not everyone is up to my standards and just because you say you don't abuse things, why should I be made to buy something you have used and pay the full price? Do you find it OK to buy used stuff for full, brand new prices? I mean would you buy two months old cars with 4000km and lenses/cameras with several thousand exposures and call them new?

iwannabesedated said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't deny DOA exists; I have in fact some experience in that field, even though not with Nikon. Of course, even Nikon can box something which is not working as expected and those boxes can hit the market, but what I say is that I don't believe there are that many defective lenses so one person has to go through several of the same before finding one working. That's just nonsense.

--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

iwannabesedated said:

When discerning buyers are sold a defective lens, they will return it to the vendor. Defective lenses will be resold and resold until, at last, they end up in the hands of oblivious buyers who, apparently, don't give a sh*t about being sold a crappy lens (or believe such an event to be impossible).

Click to expand...

That's just nonsense since you are assuming everyone else is blind. The solution is not to buy from shops with return policy, unless they can warrant that what I buy is brand new and have not been out of the shop before it arrived there and was put out for sale. Perhaps you are happy to use second hand stuff, I am not, unless I paid second hand price.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

I returned two "bad copies" of 17-55 which have focus problem on my then D50 at 17mm. The dealer (Mifsuds) said the lens tested OK and will be sent to Nikon for further testing. Finally I returned the 3rd one after paying 10% restocking fee.

Later I realised it may not be the problem of the lens itself, just a combination of the field of curve at 17mm and poor AF sensors in my D50.

The service of Mifsuds is very good in handling all these. I think all the "bad copies" are sent to Nikon instead of selling to someone else. I will try them again if needed in the future.

Mark

olyflyer said:

Not sound? Would you buy a car with 4000km in it and pay the price of the brand new one, perhaps used and abused by a dog/cat/kids/chain smoker family? I would not. And if you believe that you won't pay for those returned cars every time you buy a new one and don't return it than you are naive. Someone will pay for the loss and it won’t be Dodge or GM but you, the customer.

Click to expand...

You're just ridiculous. You assume (quite incorrectly) that the car dealer will try to resell the unsatisfactory automobile as "new", and then you waste many emotional words based on that faulty premise. That seems to be your habit - incorrect assumptions followed by dramatic arguments.

Yes, of course auto dealers have to factor returned merchandise into their overall cost of doing business, as do all manufacturers, including Nikon. Duh. But they have a choice: Spend money up front to do proper quality control, or spend money on processing returns. Good companies focus on the former. And, we pay for it either way. -iwbs

olyflyer said:

iwannabesedated said:

When discerning buyers are sold a defective lens, they will return it to the vendor. Defective lenses will be resold and resold until, at last, they end up in the hands of oblivious buyers who, apparently, don't give a sh*t about being sold a crappy lens (or believe such an event to be impossible).

Click to expand...

That's just nonsense since you are assuming everyone else is blind. The solution is not to buy from shops with return policy, unless they can warrant that what I buy is brand new and have not been out of the shop before it arrived there and was put out for sale. Perhaps you are happy to use second hand stuff, I am not, unless I paid second hand price.

Click to expand...

Jeez, that was an obvious joke. Don't take jokes so seriously. You'll live longer. -iwbs

nt
--
patrick byrne
newburyport, ma

Greg Gebhardt said:

Likely they never leave the retailer and they just resell them as new, so we are buying returned lenses with imagined problems!

Click to expand...

There may be something in this.

Nikon obviously take back defective lenses, and from time to time sell refurbished lenses (and bodies).

Based on examining the images for over 500 claims for defective focusing lenses or bodies I have seen only 2 tested in a way which confirmed there was a fault.

Almost all the rest showed the "tester" did not know how to select an AF target suitable for testing, and a few looked very much like camera shake of subject movement.

If the retailer (as in the Mifsud's thread) tests the lens properly and it is sharp they can hardly send it back to Nikon for a fault that does not exist
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Based on examining the images for over 500 claims for defective focusing lenses or bodies I have seen only 2 tested in a way which confirmed there was a fault.

Click to expand...

No matter how many times you paste that statement verbatim into a thread, you have yet to substantiate any of your "examinations." Apparently you just read this forum, which is not a valid basis for making such a strong claim. Additionally, no matter how many new people bring new legitimate defects, your count never rises from 2.

Thus, I suggest ignoring Leonard's baseless claim about examinations.

The LensRentals guy does actually see the lenses in person, and he estimates it at 3 to 7 percent of the market... Not good for your claim of 2.

--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead

iwannabesedated said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are a few limitations to the Chrysler deal. You'll be scot-free provided you haven't put more than 4,000 miles on the vehicle in those 60 days, and provided the vehicle has less than $200 of damage. You'll also be charged 30 cents per mile you've put on the vehicle since the sale date.

All I can say is read the fine print prior to thinking you will be scot-free. There's a premium to be paid and you'll find out this deal isn't as sweet as it sound. Plus, most of these deals have an upfront charge above and beyond sticker/negotiated price.

Nikon ought to start charging 35% above MSRP and give a 35% rebate to people that keep their lens for 6-months. If they decide to return it they get their money back except the 35%. This would cut down on all the "issues" these armchair experts seem to always find.

Mark Twain said:

I returned two "bad copies" of 17-55 which have focus problem on my then D50 at 17mm. The dealer (Mifsuds) said the lens tested OK and will be sent to Nikon for further testing. Finally I returned the 3rd one after paying 10% restocking fee.

Later I realised it may not be the problem of the lens itself, just a combination of the field of curve at 17mm and poor AF sensors in my D50.

The service of Mifsuds is very good in handling all these. I think all the "bad copies" are sent to Nikon instead of selling to someone else. I will try them again if needed in the future.

Click to expand...

Thanks for being honest and upfront with your experience. You have just proven what I have been saying for a long time. These armchair experts and testers forget that there are many variables in the equation. It's going to be funny when these geniuses buy a D4(x) and find the very same lenses they cherry-picked today might be slightly out due to a body with different tolerances, but still in factory specs.

Vince Lagrange said:

Mark Twain said:

I returned two "bad copies" of 17-55 which have focus problem on my then D50 at 17mm. The dealer (Mifsuds) said the lens tested OK and will be sent to Nikon for further testing. Finally I returned the 3rd one after paying 10% restocking fee.

Later I realised it may not be the problem of the lens itself, just a combination of the field of curve at 17mm and poor AF sensors in my D50.

The service of Mifsuds is very good in handling all these. I think all the "bad copies" are sent to Nikon instead of selling to someone else. I will try them again if needed in the future.

Click to expand...

Thanks for being honest and upfront with your experience. You have just proven what I have been saying for a long time. These armchair experts and testers forget that there are many variables in the equation. It's going to be funny when these geniuses buy a D4(x) and find the very same lenses they cherry-picked today might be slightly out due to a body with different tolerances, but still in factory specs.

Click to expand...

Following your posts are always good for a laugh. You should work in the political arena as a spin doctor but then again maybe you do or maybe you work for Nikon as you come off as the ultimate delusional fanboy.

Here's a happy face for you as you seem to like them .

Take care.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Perhaps you weren't looking for it. Ignorance is bliss.

Vince Lagrange said:

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.

Click to expand...

-

-
http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury