16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

MikeBruce said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

3 decentered lenses in a row? The odds are pretty high against that happening..

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

PVCdroid said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Crap, another decentered user causing havoc.

Click to expand...

gkstar said:

If they acknowledge a problem, they will likely replace rather than fix. If you do not like the second one either - you might be stuck. Worst case though.

Click to expand...

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Care to share some examples of at least one of these lenses and provide details as to the methodology used to decide whether a lens is decentered?!

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Care to share some examples of at least one of these lenses and provide details as to the methodology used to decide whether a lens is decentered?!

Click to expand...

The left side of this image is soft, even though the tree trunk is on the same focal plane as the picnic table (focal point,) in the center. At 23mm and f6.7, the tree (on the left) should be sharp.

Click to expand...

PVCdroid said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Care to share some examples of at least one of these lenses and provide details as to the methodology used to decide whether a lens is decentered?!

Click to expand...

The left side of this image is soft, even though the tree trunk is on the same focal plane as the picnic table (focal point,) in the center. At 23mm and f6.7, the tree (on the left) should be sharp.

Click to expand...

Look at the distance of the tree on the left side and compare it to what looks like the same distance to the table on the right. They appear to be the same in distance and similarly slightly out of focus. Sorry, but I think it's in your head and you're caught up in the decentering theory conspiracy. It's up to you but I think you've got a good copy. I don't know what your previous camera was but moving to 24mp from 16 is an eye opener for pixel gawking when doing 1:1 previews. There is also OSS that may be initiating some mild differences side to side.

Click to expand...

AFishEye said:

How is a random image a proof of anything? Is this what you call methodology? Were you able to accurately reproduce it in various focal lengths under same test conditions and in different occasions? How was this image taken, handheld I guess.
I can use every random partially unfocused image as a proof for decentering.
You better have something much better than that to support your claim!

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

PVCdroid said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

Nine months past I tried two new 16-70 Sony/ZEISS but found both de-centered and immediately returned both. Since then, with a new a6000, I decided to try the lens again but unfortunately the new, third copy is also bad. Sigh.

My question then is, has anyone sent a de-centered 16-70 back to Sony for adjustment? If so, did Sony agree to the repair, and if so, was the lens adjusted to your satisfaction?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Care to share some examples of at least one of these lenses and provide details as to the methodology used to decide whether a lens is decentered?!

Click to expand...

The left side of this image is soft, even though the tree trunk is on the same focal plane as the picnic table (focal point,) in the center. At 23mm and f6.7, the tree (on the left) should be sharp.

Click to expand...

Look at the distance of the tree on the left side and compare it to what looks like the same distance to the table on the right. They appear to be the same in distance and similarly slightly out of focus. Sorry, but I think it's in your head and you're caught up in the decentering theory conspiracy. It's up to you but I think you've got a good copy. I don't know what your previous camera was but moving to 24mp from 16 is an eye opener for pixel gawking when doing 1:1 previews. There is also OSS that may be initiating some mild differences side to side.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have this right. The right side foreground tree, and table in the background are not in the focal plane. Only the tree on the far left and the center table are in the focal plane, with the tree (on the far left,) being out of focus.

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

How is a random image a proof of anything? Is this what you call methodology? Were you able to accurately reproduce it in various focal lengths under same test conditions and in different occasions? How was this image taken, handheld I guess.
I can use every random partially unfocused image as a proof for decentering.
You better have something much better than that to support your claim!

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Sony has purposely designed an arbitrary focal plane lens? In other words, two thirds of an image made with the Sony/ZEISS 16-70 f4 can be perfectly in focus, and the other third of the image will be out of focus, even when having the same focal plane as the rest of the image. WOW.

Sorry brother, but at 23mm and f6.7 with two thirds of the image sharp, the entire focal plane should be sharp.

Click to expand...

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

How is a random image a proof of anything? Is this what you call methodology? Were you able to accurately reproduce it in various focal lengths under same test conditions and in different occasions? How was this image taken, handheld I guess.
I can use every random partially unfocused image as a proof for decentering.
You better have something much better than that to support your claim!

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Sony has purposely designed an arbitrary focal plane lens? In other words, two thirds of an image made with the Sony/ZEISS 16-70 f4 can be perfectly in focus, and the other third of the image will be out of focus, even when having the same focal plane as the rest of the image. WOW.

Sorry brother, but at 23mm and f6.7 with two thirds of the image sharp, the entire focal plane should be sharp.

Click to expand...

While it is possible that you had 3(!) bad lenses in a row, it's not probable!
Until you provide meaningful samples (plural, under identical reproducible conditions) and describe the methodology used, your claims remain completely unsubstantiated.

Click to expand...

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

How is a random image a proof of anything? Is this what you call methodology? Were you able to accurately reproduce it in various focal lengths under same test conditions and in different occasions? How was this image taken, handheld I guess.
I can use every random partially unfocused image as a proof for decentering.
You better have something much better than that to support your claim!

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Sony has purposely designed an arbitrary focal plane lens? In other words, two thirds of an image made with the Sony/ZEISS 16-70 f4 can be perfectly in focus, and the other third of the image will be out of focus, even when having the same focal plane as the rest of the image. WOW.

Sorry brother, but at 23mm and f6.7 with two thirds of the image sharp, the entire focal plane should be sharp.

Click to expand...

While it is possible that you had 3(!) bad lenses in a row, it's not probable!
Until you provide meaningful samples (plural, under identical reproducible conditions) and describe the methodology used, your claims remain completely unsubstantiated.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the third lens but 9mos after the first two. While I am not a Sony apologist, neither am I a troll or hater. The sample is obvious to me, but not to you. OK. All I'm looking for is confirmation that Sony will repair/adjust this known issue.

Click to expand...

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

mandophoto said:

AFishEye said:

How is a random image a proof of anything? Is this what you call methodology? Were you able to accurately reproduce it in various focal lengths under same test conditions and in different occasions? How was this image taken, handheld I guess.
I can use every random partially unfocused image as a proof for decentering.
You better have something much better than that to support your claim!

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Sony has purposely designed an arbitrary focal plane lens? In other words, two thirds of an image made with the Sony/ZEISS 16-70 f4 can be perfectly in focus, and the other third of the image will be out of focus, even when having the same focal plane as the rest of the image. WOW.

Sorry brother, but at 23mm and f6.7 with two thirds of the image sharp, the entire focal plane should be sharp.

Click to expand...

While it is possible that you had 3(!) bad lenses in a row, it's not probable!
Until you provide meaningful samples (plural, under identical reproducible conditions) and describe the methodology used, your claims remain completely unsubstantiated.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the third lens but 9mos after the first two. While I am not a Sony apologist, neither am I a troll or hater. The sample is obvious to me, but not to you. OK. All I'm looking for is confirmation that Sony will repair/adjust this known issue.

Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but I'm not sure you know if there is a problem or not. It looks like you may be sending a perfectly fine lens to have it disassembled for absolutely no good reason.

Click to expand...