16-70 repair by Sony?

Started Jul 5, 2014 | Questions
mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
16-70 repair by Sony?

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.

ANSWER:
Sony a6000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
MikeBruce Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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

gkstar Regular Member • Posts: 375
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

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.

 gkstar's gear list:gkstar's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS +2 more
PVCdroid
PVCdroid Senior Member • Posts: 4,353
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto wrote:

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.

Crap, another decentered user causing havoc.

 PVCdroid's gear list:PVCdroid's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R II
OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

MikeBruce wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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

Yes, that's what I was hoping. I really like the lens and am trying to find a fix. But it is expensive so this issue is not acceptable.

AFishEye Regular Member • Posts: 413
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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?!

 AFishEye's gear list:AFishEye's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a6300 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 70-200 F4 +6 more
OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

PVCdroid wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

Crap, another decentered user causing havoc.

Actually, it is Sony causing s**t.

OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

gkstar wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's occurred to me. That's one of the reasons for my inquiry.

OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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?!

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.

PVCdroid
PVCdroid Senior Member • Posts: 4,353
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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?!

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.

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.

 PVCdroid's gear list:PVCdroid's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R II
AFishEye Regular Member • Posts: 413
Re: seriously?!
1

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!

 AFishEye's gear list:AFishEye's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a6300 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 70-200 F4 +6 more
OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

PVCdroid wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: seriously?!

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

PVCdroid
PVCdroid Senior Member • Posts: 4,353
Re: 16-70 repair by Sony?

mandophoto wrote:

PVCdroid wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

I'm seeing the right concrete table that is starting to go out of focus. Behind that is another table that is slightly further out of focus. I've seen this before where others try to prove decentering but they are comparing objects at different distances. I also see the left side grasses behind the tree in better focus than the tree itself. Again, it's up to you but I think you're looking to close and I don't believe you'll ever be happy with it, or anything else besides a prime.

 PVCdroid's gear list:PVCdroid's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R II
AFishEye Regular Member • Posts: 413
Re: no proof
1

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

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.

 AFishEye's gear list:AFishEye's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a6300 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 70-200 F4 +6 more
OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: no proof

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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.

AFishEye Regular Member • Posts: 413
Re: no proof

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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. After all, it they test it and state that there is nothing wrong with it, you will remain unhappy. You leave them no option other than unscrewing and screwing things back in place just for you to feel it has been "repaired". I honestly don't see anything unusual in this image. If you used AF handheld, just there you have a potential reason for such outcome.

 AFishEye's gear list:AFishEye's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a6300 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 70-200 F4 +6 more
OP mandophoto Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: no proof

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obviously we disagree. Peace.

Jerry R Forum Pro • Posts: 10,201
If you want to know if a lens has a problem it has to be tested by itself on an optical

If you want to know if a lens has a problem it has to be tested by itself on an optical bench. Although I don't see how any conclusion can be drawn from the posted picture. A miss alignment of the lens to the camera sensor would give the appearance of what many are attributing to decentring.

-- hide signature --

Canon A2E, Sony R1, NEX C3 & 5R + Zeiss 24mm & 16-70 E Lenses, Nikon D5100 + 35mm, 85mm & Sigma 150mm lenses, Nikon V1 + 10-30 & 30-110 lenses.

PVCdroid
PVCdroid Senior Member • Posts: 4,353
Re: no proof

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

mandophoto wrote:

AFishEye wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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. After all, it they test it and state that there is nothing wrong with it, you will remain unhappy. You leave them no option other than unscrewing and screwing things back in place just for you to feel it has been "repaired". I honestly don't see anything unusual in this image. If you used AF handheld, just there you have a potential reason for such outcome.

Sony doesn't do any dissassembling of lenses. They will either say it is within specs or determine that the optical block needs replaced. At that point, they will just order you a new lens.

 PVCdroid's gear list:PVCdroid's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a7R II
selected answer This post was selected as the answer by the original poster.
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads