Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony's (lack of?) lens quality control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
sparkie said:
ZoranC said:
Which brought me to question that is the reason of why I am starting this thread: I am wondering who else had issues with their copies of 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 24-70/4 or 28-70/3.5-5.6, what that issue was, did you end up resolving it or you gave up, what it took to resolve it, if resolution was to get another copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
How did you test for decentering? Got examples?
Click to expand...
Sigh. Just like many others you don't stop to comprehend what is being asked and just spout off.
 
You're off base, You want to complain about a lens, have the guts to show what you're talking about.

I found I had a defective lens that photozone.de gave a 100 score - and posted the evidence: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53342252

I'm not saying Sony doesn't have lens QC issues - until the launch of the new FE lenses, I admit I was more than a skeptic. The 24-70 gave me pause.

But you have shown us nothing.

PS: My kit lens is terrific - and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53342252 shows that.
ZoranC said:
As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once they were announced I have, naturally, followed posts related to them and lenses for them on some of the major forums. I have heard quite a few praises of 55/1.8 so I went and ordered it. During shooting with it I started feeling something seems to be off with the lens. At approximately same time I became aware of posts with people complaining that their copies of 35/2.8 were arriving optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return more than one before they got one that was more or less OK. For example, posts in threads like this one http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49755-35-fe-sonnar-decentering-who-else.html

That made me pay closer attention could it be that my copy of 55/1.8 is decentered. Checking for that showed that it is, which was easily visible when I compared it against second copy of same lens. Naturally first copy went back and second one was kept (even though second copy too indicates it might be bit off as I just wasn't in position to focus anymore on that). At that moment I attributed experience to bad luck with one copy and didn't give it any further thought.

Some time later I decided I want to get 35/2.8. Moment my copy arrived it was obvious it is a bad copy and it went back faster than it arrived. To make long story short it took way more than one try to end up with copy that is (almost) OK (I say almost because even one I kept is not completely as it should be, it was just one with least amount of "issue").

While I was going through my experience with 35/2.8 I started becoming aware of posts with people complaining that their newly arrived copies of 24-70/4 were optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return them to get "OK" copies.

Which brought me to question that is the reason of why I am starting this thread: I am wondering who else had issues with their copies of 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 24-70/4 or 28-70/3.5-5.6, what that issue was, did you end up resolving it or you gave up, what it took to resolve it, if resolution was to get another copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
 
stevo23 said:
ZoranC said:
stevo23 said:
stevo23 wrote: Perhaps these no worse than the rest. I've seen so many copies of Nikon AIS and AF lenses that had terrible tolerances that I quit trying. More often than not, it has little impact on your overall image making.
Click to expand...
I don't have 30+ MP Nikon body so I am not able to comment on such lenses but please notice that AIS lenses were not designed for 30+ MP bodies and copies you got hold of were probably not new straight out of factory, maybe had previous owners and went through repairs and cleanings, while in Sony case we are talking about lenses designed for particular 30+ MP body that is brand new straight out of factory.
Click to expand...
I've had them since they were new. AIS lenses are solidly made and perhaps to tighter tolerances than new lenses.
Click to expand...
Still they were not designed for 30+ MP cameras. They were not even designed for digital camera. They were designed for film. Bad example. Plus none of my many Nikon AIS lenses shows any signs of decentering on my D700. Would they on D800? I don't know but they were not designed for high MP bodies like these Sonys.
 
hyenadog said:
As i understand it Sony recognised officially it had a major problem with dire lens QC and was in the process of getting Olympus to sort it out ?? I dont hear many complaints about Oly lens QC so if it happens then hopefully Sony lens QC will get better.

I do chuckle though at fanboys paying Zeiss price for a "Zeiss badged" E mount made alongside Sony's std emounts all subject to dire Lens QC .. LOL

Personally i wouldnt spend serious money on E-mount lenses after experiencing Sony lens QC firsthand until i know absolutely things have got better (just the black 50SEL for me Sony wise)

if you want to test the AF accuracy out then the sony bracketing app is really useful

if you want to test for lens decentering etc, get a tripod and a "star chart" (about $5 to $25(Zeiss one) and its pretty easy to see any material decentering etc
Click to expand...
"As i understand it Sony recognised officially it had a major problem with dire lens QC and was in the process of getting Olympus to sort it out ??"

C'mon, friend, you're a better guy than that. I know you don't believe that.
 
wictred said:
ZoranC said:
Care to provide some logic behing why you feel that is reasonable? When you say to your wife "I had stomach pain after eating what you cooked, did you experience same?" would it be reasonable if she replies "Until you can prove you had stomach pain from my cooking I can't discuss whether I had it too"?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the stomach pain is only in your head.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I should have known better than to post on DPR, on other forums I was not getting clown responses like this one but actual intelligent civilized discussion.
 
ZoranC said:
As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once they were announced I have, naturally, followed posts related to them and lenses for them on some of the major forums. I have heard quite a few praises of 55/1.8 so I went and ordered it. During shooting with it I started feeling something seems to be off with the lens. At approximately same time I became aware of posts with people complaining that their copies of 35/2.8 were arriving optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return more than one before they got one that was more or less OK. For example, posts in threads like this one http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49755-35-fe-sonnar-decentering-who-else.html

That made me pay closer attention could it be that my copy of 55/1.8 is decentered. Checking for that showed that it is, which was easily visible when I compared it against second copy of same lens. Naturally first copy went back and second one was kept (even though second copy too indicates it might be bit off as I just wasn't in position to focus anymore on that). At that moment I attributed experience to bad luck with one copy and didn't give it any further thought.

Some time later I decided I want to get 35/2.8. Moment my copy arrived it was obvious it is a bad copy and it went back faster than it arrived. To make long story short it took way more than one try to end up with copy that is (almost) OK (I say almost because even one I kept is not completely as it should be, it was just one with least amount of "issue").

While I was going through my experience with 35/2.8 I started becoming aware of posts with people complaining that their newly arrived copies of 24-70/4 were optically decentered/misaligned and that they had to return them to get "OK" copies.

Which brought me to question that is the reason of why I am starting this thread: I am wondering who else had issues with their copies of 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 24-70/4 or 28-70/3.5-5.6, what that issue was, did you end up resolving it or you gave up, what it took to resolve it, if resolution was to get another copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
I own a 16-50PZ, a 16mm pancake, a 55-210 and a 28-70mm FE. All are as next to perfect as one can expect. No sorting, no send-backs. Lots of posted images here.
 
Mel Snyder said:
Mel Snyder wrote: I own a 16-50PZ, a 16mm pancake, a 55-210 and a 28-70mm FE. All are as next to perfect as one can expect. No sorting, no send-backs. Lots of posted images here.
Click to expand...
Mel, please notice out of all the lenses you mentioned only one is among those that I inquired about.
 
Mel Snyder said:
hyenadog said:
As i understand it Sony recognised officially it had a major problem with dire lens QC and was in the process of getting Olympus to sort it out ?? I dont hear many complaints about Oly lens QC so if it happens then hopefully Sony lens QC will get better.

I do chuckle though at fanboys paying Zeiss price for a "Zeiss badged" E mount made alongside Sony's std emounts all subject to dire Lens QC .. LOL

Personally i wouldnt spend serious money on E-mount lenses after experiencing Sony lens QC firsthand until i know absolutely things have got better (just the black 50SEL for me Sony wise)

if you want to test the AF accuracy out then the sony bracketing app is really useful

if you want to test for lens decentering etc, get a tripod and a "star chart" (about $5 to $25(Zeiss one) and its pretty easy to see any material decentering etc
Click to expand...
"As i understand it Sony recognised officially it had a major problem with dire lens QC and was in the process of getting Olympus to sort it out ??"

C'mon, friend, you're a better guy than that. I know you don't believe that.
Click to expand...
Exactly Mel... Thanks for saying it!

I want to be clear Sony like the other OEMs is not perfect. Heck I have even had problems with a few Leica lenses over the years the too are not perfect. So far the FE lenses I have including the 24-70 are fine... various forum reports aside.

It is easy to hide the bushes and take pot shots and when called-out chuck the word "fanbois" around. Thanks Mel for your always reasoned responses.

Terry
 
parallaxproblem said:
stevo23 said:
I get it, but the processes you set up are what matter. You wouldn't ask a Thai-based company to make lenses. But when you are Sony or Nikon, you set up a modern factory to tight tolerances. Nikon has been making lenses and Cameras there for a while and they're well made.
Click to expand...
Actually Nikon wanted to pull out of Thailand (rumours were becuase of concerns over production quality) and were about to do so until the Thai government got directly involved...

Thailand was the only country in that region which was never colonised (though there were quite strong British and later American infuences), as a result the culture is still 'original' and very unique. This has both strengths and weaknesses, but in terms of integrating with 'conventional' (ie. international) manufacturing and business practices it is a weakness. Basically the mentality is that people want you to be 'happy' which means they tell you what they think you want to hear, whether that reflects reality or not - great for a service industry, terrible for a manufacturing industry. The 'middle-way' buddhist tradition means that everybody tries to find balance in what they do so if you tell somebody to do something 'urgently' and drop all other tasks they will say 'yes' but then put it to the middle or bottom of the list of activities as that is more balanced that responding immediately. Somebody that isn't liked at work is simply ignored, whether they are an immediate colleague or not etc etc etc... Criticism in the workplace simply doesn't happen, and has to be dressed in lots of niceties, but the problem is that the niceties 'well it's very good...' are heard (misleadingly) and the criticisms '... but actually it isn't useable in the current form' are ignored. Throw in a highly paternalistic management culture in which nobody is expected to think for themselves or take any responsibility for notifiying anybody when even simple unexpected events occur like for example a stock item or fax/photocopying paper running out...

I could give lots and of personal examples of the absolute catastrophies this creates, particularly when there is interaction with business units in other countries, but I'm afraid I might never stop... It was a wonderful experience, but not the most efficient environment I've ever worked in

I guess that you haven't worked in such a culture yourself?
Click to expand...
Yea, whatever. I think you're making a lot of leaps between the culture and modern manufacturing processes that don't add up.

Any problems with Sony's lenses are not the fault of Thailand.
 
sparkie said:
Dustinash said:
I suspect it is because they completey flailed on QC with these lenses and have started an internal process to look at what is going on. Yay for making precision instruments in Thailand... Can we go back to Japan now or EVEN CHINA. Where QC seems to be much more consistent?
Click to expand...
pretty sure my 35/2.8 is made in japan... Which lenses are made in Thailand?
Click to expand...
Mine is too. 55 1.8 is made in Thailand.
 
ZoranC said:
stevo23 said:
ZoranC said:
ZoranC said:
stevo23 wrote: Perhaps these no worse than the rest. I've seen so many copies of Nikon AIS and AF lenses that had terrible tolerances that I quit trying. More often than not, it has little impact on your overall image making.
Click to expand...
I don't have 30+ MP Nikon body so I am not able to comment on such lenses but please notice that AIS lenses were not designed for 30+ MP bodies and copies you got hold of were probably not new straight out of factory, maybe had previous owners and went through repairs and cleanings, while in Sony case we are talking about lenses designed for particular 30+ MP body that is brand new straight out of factory.
Click to expand...
I've had them since they were new. AIS lenses are solidly made and perhaps to tighter tolerances than new lenses.
Click to expand...
Still they were not designed for 30+ MP cameras. They were not even designed for digital camera. They were designed for film. Bad example.
Click to expand...
I don't think your film vs. digital argument really holds up. We knew about decentering a long time before AIS existed.
ZoranC said:
Plus none of my many Nikon AIS lenses shows any signs of decentering on my D700.
Click to expand...
So you tested them on a chart?
ZoranC said:
Would they on D800? I don't know but they were not designed for high MP bodies like these Sonys.
Click to expand...
 
stevo23 said:
ZoranC said:
stevo23 said:
ZoranC said:
stevo23 said:
stevo23 wrote: Perhaps these no worse than the rest. I've seen so many copies of Nikon AIS and AF lenses that had terrible tolerances that I quit trying. More often than not, it has little impact on your overall image making.
Click to expand...
I don't have 30+ MP Nikon body so I am not able to comment on such lenses but please notice that AIS lenses were not designed for 30+ MP bodies and copies you got hold of were probably not new straight out of factory, maybe had previous owners and went through repairs and cleanings, while in Sony case we are talking about lenses designed for particular 30+ MP body that is brand new straight out of factory.
Click to expand...
I've had them since they were new. AIS lenses are solidly made and perhaps to tighter tolerances than new lenses.
Click to expand...
Still they were not designed for 30+ MP cameras. They were not even designed for digital camera. They were designed for film. Bad example.
Click to expand...
I don't think your film vs. digital argument really holds up. We knew about decentering a long time before AIS existed.
Click to expand...
Film vs. digital argument does hold up. Things that were not showing up (as much) on film are showing up on modern digital bodies, especially as MP count is going up.
stevo23 said:
stevo23 said:
Plus none of my many Nikon AIS lenses shows any signs of decentering on my D700.
Click to expand...
So you tested them on a chart?
Click to expand...
I tested them in more ways than one. Which bodies you tested your AIS lenses on?
 
ZoranC said:
As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once ......,......... to get another (lens) copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
I agree with other forum members that at least a picture would be relevant of what you call "decentered". It's easy to post a picture. I don't defend the E-mount lenses quality.

The Sony full frame mirrorless cameras and FE lenses cost a lot more than a Nex and E mount lens. People have even more expectations from FF. I have high expectations from Nex. I went through 4 kit lenses about six months ago. The better one is acceptable. One made in Japan was worse than two other made in Thailand.

Reading more about causes for insufficient sharpness, measuring how much the front element moved side to side, or up and down when zoomed, I took apart one lens. The zoom mechanism with all the backlash induces decentering. That's not the case with primes, but FE primes have one thing in common with the E mount lenses: the OSS. That system induces decentering too.

I was waiting for the first complains about decentering on FE lenses. Sony tries to sell more, but making a body with IBIS a lot of people would buy just the camera. With OSS a lot of people buy the FE lenses because are stabilized.

Knowing enough about mechanical design and controls my feeling is that the decentering issues are caused first of all by the design of the OSS lens. Manufacturing probably tries the best in QC, but they can do only so much. I'll post pictures of how the OSS is made in a 1855 kit lens. I expect it's done the same way on the other E mount lenses, and why not in FE lenses too.

I asked in this forum if anybody knows how much of decentering takes to notice a drop in picture quality. No answer so far, maybe on different forums.
 
For some reason people here are incredibly defensive of their Sony lenses - even if they personally have never experienced any problems, they just can't accept that OTHER people have had bad copies. Whenever someone raises the issue of decentering, it's like a red rug to a bull here.

I don't own any Sony FE lenses but out of the 4 ASP-C Sony E-mounts I've had over time, 2 had to be replaced ( E16, E1855 ). I also sold my E55210 as, although it wasn't as bad as the other two, it was far from perfect optically. I decided not to get the E1670 as the early copy I've tried was a joke - decentering along the bottom left hand side of the frame - 15-20% (I am not talking here about the 'mushy' corners wide open). That's in a lens with a $1000 price tag.

E35 is the only Sony lens that didn't have any issues when I first got it.

Funny how nobody here has ever mentioned any QC problems with the cheap 19 & 30 Sigmas yet the question of Sony QC periodically crops up ( despite many denials ).
 
piticoto said:
ZoranC said:
As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once ......,......... to get another (lens) copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
I agree with other forum members that at least a picture would be relevant of what you call "decentered". It's easy to post a picture. ...
Click to expand...
Not so easy until one is back in front of the computer that does have those files on it :) Plus I will have to spend some time separating which files I can post and which ones I can't for privacy and other reasons.
piticoto said:
The Sony full frame mirrorless cameras and FE lenses cost a lot more than a Nex and E mount lens. People have even more expectations from FF. I have high expectations from Nex. I went through 4 kit lenses about six months ago. The better one is acceptable. One made in Japan was worse than two other made in Thailand.

Reading more about causes for insufficient sharpness, measuring how much the front element moved side to side, or up and down when zoomed, I took apart one lens. The zoom mechanism with all the backlash induces decentering. That's not the case with primes, but FE primes have one thing in common with the E mount lenses: the OSS. That system induces decentering too.

I was waiting for the first complains about decentering on FE lenses. Sony tries to sell more, but making a body with IBIS a lot of people would buy just the camera. With OSS a lot of people buy the FE lenses because are stabilized.

Knowing enough about mechanical design and controls my feeling is that the decentering issues are caused first of all by the design of the OSS lens. Manufacturing probably tries the best in QC, but they can do only so much. I'll post pictures of how the OSS is made in a 1855 kit lens. I expect it's done the same way on the other E mount lenses, and why not in FE lenses too.

I asked in this forum if anybody knows how much of decentering takes to notice a drop in picture quality. No answer so far, maybe on different forums.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input!
 
Last edited:
piticoto said:
ZoranC said:
As somebody that was very interested in "full frame NEX" and thus pre-ordered A7R once ......,......... to get another (lens) copy how many tries it took you before you stopped further trying and accepted it or gave up, and was final copy completely OK?
Click to expand...
I agree with other forum members that at least a picture would be relevant of what you call "decentered". It's easy to post a picture. I don't defend the E-mount lenses quality.

The Sony full frame mirrorless cameras and FE lenses cost a lot more than a Nex and E mount lens. People have even more expectations from FF. I have high expectations from Nex. I went through 4 kit lenses about six months ago. The better one is acceptable. One made in Japan was worse than two other made in Thailand.

Reading more about causes for insufficient sharpness, measuring how much the front element moved side to side, or up and down when zoomed, I took apart one lens. The zoom mechanism with all the backlash induces decentering. That's not the case with primes, but FE primes have one thing in common with the E mount lenses: the OSS. That system induces decentering too.

I was waiting for the first complains about decentering on FE lenses. Sony tries to sell more, but making a body with IBIS a lot of people would buy just the camera. With OSS a lot of people buy the FE lenses because are stabilized.

Knowing enough about mechanical design and controls my feeling is that the decentering issues are caused first of all by the design of the OSS lens. Manufacturing probably tries the best in QC, but they can do only so much. I'll post pictures of how the OSS is made in a 1855 kit lens. I expect it's done the same way on the other E mount lenses, and why not in FE lenses too.

I asked in this forum if anybody knows how much of decentering takes to notice a drop in picture quality. No answer so far, maybe on different forums.
Click to expand...
I too thought the OSS might be the culprit but then again the E16 is not stabilised and it's probably the most 'decentered' of them all. At least most complains were about this one.
 
Caris said:
For some reason people here are incredibly defensive of their Sony lenses - even if they personally have never experienced any problems, they just can't accept that OTHER people have had bad copies. Whenever someone raises the issue of decentering, it's like a red rug to a bull here.
Click to expand...
Such behaviors are unfortunately way too common.
Caris said:
I don't own any Sony FE lenses but out of the 4 ASP-C Sony E-mounts I've had over time, 2 had to be replaced ( E16, E1855 ). I also sold my E55210 as, although it wasn't as bad as the other two, it was far from perfect optically. I decided not to get the E1670 as the early copy I've tried was a joke - decentering along the bottom left hand side of the frame - 15-20% (I am not talking here about the 'mushy' corners wide open). That's in a lens with a $1000 price tag.

E35 is the only Sony lens that didn't have any issues when I first got it.

Funny how nobody here has ever mentioned any QC problems with the cheap 19 & 30 Sigmas yet the question of Sony QC periodically crops up ( despite many denials ).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your input!
 
EinsteinsGhost said:
I think it is reasonable for people to ask you to provide your sample so as to discuss this.
Click to expand...
Why? The OP didn't ask for someone to verify if his lens had an alignment issue. All he wanted to know is if anyone had issues and what it took for them to get it resolved. Pretty simple question, pretty simple answer. Why does he need to prove if his lens had problems, when all he wanted to know is what steps others took to resolve the problem? Why does it need to be discussed as to if the OP is correct about the findings of his lens. Even a moron can test a lens to see if it has a centering problem, so why question him on it.

Due to the nature of what the OP was asking, I would think that only people who had issues and resolved them would be replying... But instead he gets attacked by rabid fanboys foaming at the mouth. The fanboy ego in DPR forums is sometimes so great that it makes it a bad place. The only reason why anyone would want the OP to prove his lens has problems when he's not even asking for help with that is because you want to defend your brand.

I'd say, if you had a problem with a lens having poor alignment, exchanged it and it resolved the problem.... Then answer him. If not, move on.
 
SimonOL said:
There are too many trolls and questionable agendas around to take things like this purely at face value - whether 100% honest or otherwise.
Click to expand...
This is conspiracy theory at such a level that not even Alex Jones could wrap his head around it.

The OP didn't write as if he had any sort of agenda. He just wanted to know if others had issues and what they did to resolve it. If someone was going to troll, they'd do it much better than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top