Sony's QC is not good. Centering issue is very common in Sony e-mount oss lenses if you read the photozone sony forum. Klaus posted 35mm lens in the first page as it took 74days for Sony to fix it. I think 10-18mm was similar with reports in photozone, dpreview and talknex forums as you need to change a coiple copies to find a good one. However with Zeiss QA/QC this should not be happening. Hopefully full nex will have the Oly sensor IBIS.
I thought with your samples that left down corner is slightly less sharp than everything else.
Btw. you shoot these with OSS on or off? Quite important..
There is reason why Zeiss doesnt like any kind of stabilisation (I know its handy and I like my old KM-7D capable to take pics at 1/8, but I know it can be better and without issues when its put on tripod and locked..).
Decentering, that isnt some "Sony exclusive". Almost every manufacturer does produce some decentered lens. Worst case is probably Samyang and Samsung. Tho with Samsung its mostly just kit lens suffering from this..
Its rather normal, simply happens. Would be nice if it doesnt, but remember how much Leica lens cost in order for this to not happen..
Mescalamba wrote:
I thought with your samples that left down corner is slightly less sharp than everything else.
Btw. you shoot these with OSS on or off? Quite important..
There is reason why Zeiss doesnt like any kind of stabilisation (I know its handy and I like my old KM-7D capable to take pics at 1/8, but I know it can be better and without issues when its put on tripod and locked..).
Decentering, that isnt some "Sony exclusive". Almost every manufacturer does produce some decentered lens. Worst case is probably Samyang and Samsung. Tho with Samsung its mostly just kit lens suffering from this..
Its rather normal, simply happens. Would be nice if it doesn't, but remember how much Leica lens cost in order for this to not happen.....Show more →
OSS was off.
I remember how much this lens cost! I mean outsourcing QC to the users in hope that they won't notice is not ok in my eyes, especially when a lens carry that blue label.
I remember how much this lens cost! I mean outsourcing QC to the users in hope that they won't notice is not ok in my eyes, especially when a lens carry that blue label.
Not unusual. Two copies of the ZA 16-35 that I bought were decentered, so I had to settle with the second copy that was less decentered.
p.5 #11 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Jeff Kott wrote:
It's easier for the retailer and manufacturer to exchange the lens and sell the decentered lens to someone else.
... or I've had a manufacturer (Panasonic) exchange my brand new camera that needed fixed for a refurb, and they charged me for it because they said I dropped it. Which I absolutely had not. So I paid more than full price for my camera, and it lost value because when I resold it, I had to sell it as a refurb.
Or you can send it in and they fail to fix it, and you have to send it in again and hope they actually fix it correctly. Have had that happen, too.
All in all, sending in a new item to be fixed is an iffy proposition, IMO. It should not be that way.
p.5 #12 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Decentering is very difficult to fix. The lens has to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch and even then, it might not work optimally. For me, slight decentering is unavoidable with complex lenses containing many elements, it is a matter of how much is acceptable.
p.5 #13 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
16-70/4 is more expensive,but a mass market product still,so apparently it may suffer from the same shorthcomings as the other,cheaper products of this type do.Seems that for now only fixed focal/not autofocus Zeiss branded lenses are more or less reliable by means of their overall quality.This world,alas,is also going to the dogs.
p.5 #14 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
mco_970 wrote:
... or I've had a manufacturer (Panasonic) exchange my brand new camera that needed fixed for a refurb, and they charged me for it because they said I dropped it. Which I absolutely had not. So I paid more than full price for my camera, and it lost value because when I resold it, I had to sell it as a refurb.
Or you can send it in and they fail to fix it, and you have to send it in again and hope they actually fix it correctly. Have had that happen, too.
All in all, sending in a new item to be fixed is an iffy proposition, IMO. It should not be that way....Show more →
In Germany (maybe in the EU?) there is a rule that all such similar goods have 1-2 years of warranty, but the first six months, the manufacturer has to prove that you did something wrong, and after that, you have to prove that they did something wrong. In effect, the first six months they can barely refuse a return or exchange or repair, unless the goods have very visible damage, whereas after that, it depends on how reputable the manufacturer is whether or not they choose to do something. Leica has been very good, Canon terrible, in my experience. Others seem to have had a good experience with Canon though.
p.5 #15 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
carstenw wrote:
In Germany (maybe in the EU?) there is a rule that all such similar goods have 1-2 years of warranty, but the first six months, the manufacturer has to prove that you did something wrong, and after that, you have to prove that they did something wrong. In effect, the first six months they can barely refuse a return or exchange or repair, unless the goods have very visible damage, whereas after that, it depends on how reputable the manufacturer is whether or not they choose to do something. Leica has been very good, Canon terrible, in my experience. Others seem to have had a good experience with Canon though....Show more →
That wouldn't stop from the manufacturer saying the decentered lens is "in spec," or the retailer exchanging it and selling the returned lens to someone else.
p.5 #16 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
In this case it isnt within spec, it surely cant reach MTF it should. At least not in whole field.
I know its 1000 EUR or so.. But unfortunately, from Sony perspective, this is "premium consumer zoom". And that premium means, well only increased price.. not QC.
p.5 #17 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
It's a new release, it is rushed to market, so it's understandable. Have C/N never made a lens out of spec?
'Sony's QC is not good.' Tell it to the thousands of RX1 owners, cameras hand assembled to positively intricate tolerances...best to avoid such sweeping statements when they are so clearly incorrect.
CZ would prefer to even avoid AF if they could let alone OSS, yet Touit.
I think these issues are simply a sign of the times and all the more reason to be be vigilant. Would people pay $100 extra for more QA? I would without hesitation, in fact that could be a nice earner for the makers - an insurance policy for some extra $$. The blue label is just a collaboration deal not a rolled gold guarantee of satisfaction.
It's an important lens for them - see if you can swap it, Phillip.
Point them to this thread...think of the damage done.
p.5 #18 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
My first 55-210 OSS lens for clearly blurry at a corner even at f11 (my bad, I took it on a trip to Japan right after I got the lens and got many ruined photos), yet the Sony service center said the lens was "within specification" and technician said MTF on the web site already indicated that the lens is a consumer grade lens and that I should not expect that much...bla bla bla.. I said the MTF doesn't show that the lens should be asymmetrical in sharpness even @f11 and insisted the lens should be exchanged, or I accept the lens with the condition that guy report his "findings" on the lens in writing. At the end, I got a new lens, which was tested before they gave it to me, but since then I really hesitate when I want to buy a Sony lens.
If I remember that right, Sony Zeiss lens have a card with the name of the QC guy who inspected the lens. I assume they are telling us that Sony Zeiss has better QC.
This might be Zeiss's cheap lens, but it's Sony's premium lens, more expensive than G lens, if I were in your shoes I would exchange it for another.
p.5 #19 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
philip_pj wrote:
It's a new release, it is rushed to market, so it's understandable. Have C/N never made a lens out of spec?
'Sony's QC is not good.' Tell it to the thousands of RX1 owners, cameras hand assembled to positively intricate tolerances...best to avoid such sweeping statements when they are so clearly incorrect.
CZ would prefer to even avoid AF if they could let alone OSS, yet Touit.
I think these issues are simply a sign of the times and all the more reason to be be vigilant. Would people pay $100 extra for more QA? I would without hesitation, in fact that could be a nice earner for the makers - an insurance policy for some extra $$. The blue label is just a collaboration deal not a rolled gold guarantee of satisfaction.
It's an important lens for them - see if you can swap it, Phillip.
Point them to this thread...think of the damage done....Show more →
I can return it for 30 days and got it directly from Sony.de so that shouldn't be a problem, someone mentioned that they know about their centering issues and are quite cooperative.
p.5 #20 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Beautiful shots Phillip! Very impressive!
Good to know they will exchange the lens for you. I think the policies depend on the countries. Here in Thailand, Sony will exchange the lens within 3 days of the purchase, otherwise, they will only repare it. That's why I thoroughly check the lens for any defects immediately after purchase.
