Lens: Good vs Bad copy

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
BidinTime Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: I had the same lens

altruistic 123 wrote:

Simon97 wrote:

I bought the Olympus 45/1.8 used and mine was a bad copy. It was soft all over the frame wide open. Photographing stars with it showed cone shapes in the image center indicating decentered optics. That's a shame because a good copy of it is a marvelous tiny lightweight budget prime.

I also bought a used Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and its images were soft on the right side. The used market seems to cycle around bad copies of lenses but I know they often come that way from the factory.

The Panasonic 100-400 lens ain't cheap and it is known to suffer copy variation.

Roger over at Lens rentals performs a lot of interesting tests on his precision optical bench, finds even pro lenses vary somewhat. I would think that this is milder than the gross issue like what you see with the copies of your budget primes.

Anyhow, lens sample variation has been a big issue with me. Sure I don't expect perfection but when it is bad enough to make one lens seem like junk compared to a good copy of the same model, I think that manufacturing QC is very poor.

You are absolutely right about the 45.8. If you get the right one, the image that it can render is superb for just 100 bucks.

I have come across about 10 copies of it so far and the chance of getting a bad one is around 40-50%.

I didn't know the 100-400 could vary that much. Thx for telling us.

The micro43 forum has a lot of reports about the 100-400. I gave up on getting a good copy. Fortunately, Olympus has a 100-400 coming out in a few weeks so we'll have more options.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow