This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
p.42 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I did a comparison in my blog... They are much closer then the DxO numbers suggest but Id still give the edge to the Loxia... There a couple of raws on the post too for those looking to see for themselves..
http://blog.proimagenz.com/
http://blog.proimagenz.com/
Feb 22, 2016 at 07:09 PM
p.42 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
photomadnz wrote:
I did a comparison in my blog... They are much closer then the DxO numbers suggest but Id still give the edge to the Loxia... There a couple of raws on the post too for those looking to see for themselves..
http://blog.proimagenz.com/
I guess I think the different is about what the DXO numbers suggest; which is the Loxia is (astonishingly) just about in the same league as a modern 50mm lens -- and the old ZE was (equally astonishingly for its time) just about in the same league as a decent 50mm lens of its day.
Which boils down to: both are plenty sharp enough.
I did a comparison in my blog... They are much closer then the DxO numbers suggest but Id still give the edge to the Loxia... There a couple of raws on the post too for those looking to see for themselves..
http://blog.proimagenz.com/
I guess I think the different is about what the DXO numbers suggest; which is the Loxia is (astonishingly) just about in the same league as a modern 50mm lens -- and the old ZE was (equally astonishingly for its time) just about in the same league as a decent 50mm lens of its day.
Which boils down to: both are plenty sharp enough.
Feb 22, 2016 at 07:18 PM
p.42 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
The interesting figure IMO is how well the Sigma compares. I've been browsing the 20/1.4 DPR sample gallery and it's a sharp lens wide open for non-technical scenes, such as central focus on an individual against a blurred background. Canon 5DS files look very nice with it. But for traditional near-infinity landscape type work, my impression was the Sigma fell short by a fair amount against very competent UWAs. Which makes me wonder at what distances DXO tests these lenses...
BTW, the discussion about Loxia lenses not receiving FLE a couple pages back IMO is marketing justification by Zeiss. FLE doesn't necessarily make the lens inherently larger. But yes, it will be somewhat more mechanically complex. Most of the Leica Summilux lenses are FLE and are not particularly large in the context of full frame manual focus lenses... Lack of FLE is likely for cost savings, though it would seem the Loxia 21 doesn't suffer much for the lack of it, given it's great performance. Maybe a bit of field curvature at farther distances is the tradeoff?
BTW, the discussion about Loxia lenses not receiving FLE a couple pages back IMO is marketing justification by Zeiss. FLE doesn't necessarily make the lens inherently larger. But yes, it will be somewhat more mechanically complex. Most of the Leica Summilux lenses are FLE and are not particularly large in the context of full frame manual focus lenses... Lack of FLE is likely for cost savings, though it would seem the Loxia 21 doesn't suffer much for the lack of it, given it's great performance. Maybe a bit of field curvature at farther distances is the tradeoff?
Feb 23, 2016 at 01:12 AM
p.42 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Ming Thein tested the Stigma against 21mm Loxia. The scenes had distant targets as well where Loxia was a bit ahead. Otherwise, kind of neck-to-neck. Also, the Stigma seems to roll over classic Distagon 21mm in edge/corner peformance.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/23/sigma-20-art-vs-zeiss-21-loxia/
Interesting fact is that Sigma produces funky sun stars nearly wide open.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/23/sigma-20-art-vs-zeiss-21-loxia/
Interesting fact is that Sigma produces funky sun stars nearly wide open.
Feb 23, 2016 at 01:59 AM
p.42 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
tsdevine wrote:
My Loxia is sharper than my ZE, at least that's my assessment of my two lenses.
-Tim
bbvaj wrote
Is Loxia 21, so much sharper than the ZE/ZF 21mm? (may be they have got a bad copy of ZF)From the samples we have seen on this thread it did not seem like that. The ZE/ZF seemed a touch better than Loxia from all the samples I have seen till now. Isn't it?
How does the ZE/ZF do for curvature of field at/near infinity please?
Gerry
Feb 23, 2016 at 02:51 AM
p.42 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
The Loxia has stronger field curvature at infinity than the ZE. But it it can be mitigated a good deal by careful focusing technique.
-Tim
gyoung143 wrote:
tsdevine wrote
My Loxia is sharper than my ZE, at least that's my assessment of my two lenses.-Tim
bbvaj wrote
Is Loxia 21, so much sharper than the ZE/ZF 21mm? (may be they have got a bad copy of ZF)From the samples we have seen on this thread it did not seem like that. The ZE/ZF seemed a touch better than Loxia from all the samples I have seen till now. Isn't it?
Gerry
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:37 AM
p.42 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Thanks!
Gerry
tsdevine wrote:
The Loxia has stronger field curvature at infinity than the ZE. But it it can be mitigated a good deal by careful focusing technique.
-Tim
-Tim
From the samples we have seen on this thread it did not seem like that. The ZE/ZF seemed a touch better than Loxia from all the samples I have seen till now. Isn't it?How does the ZE/ZF do for curvature of field at/near infinity please?
Gerry
Gerry
tsdevine wrote:
The Loxia has stronger field curvature at infinity than the ZE. But it it can be mitigated a good deal by careful focusing technique.
-Tim
gyoung143 wrote
tsdevine wrote
My Loxia is sharper than my ZE, at least that's my assessment of my two lenses.-Tim
bbvaj wrote
Is Loxia 21, so much sharper than the ZE/ZF 21mm? (may be they have got a bad copy of ZF)From the samples we have seen on this thread it did not seem like that. The ZE/ZF seemed a touch better than Loxia from all the samples I have seen till now. Isn't it?
Gerry
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:01 AM
p.42 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss responded to my problems with this lens. I'm actually surprised by what they said.
They basicly discarted all my examples that clearly prove the decentering of both copies and try to convince me that my testing is flawed. Plus they use the argument "we didn't get one single 21 Loxia returned for a misalignment."
We've discussed it before in this thread, but just like members like Jannik I think that doing a test at infinity is the best way to check for decentering. That way you don't have to be perfectly parallel to for example a planar subject. Just focus one corner at something in the distance and then move that subject to all 4 corners without touching the focus ring. All should look nearly identical. Zeiss disagrees!
They even talk about field curvature, but come on... do they expect their users are all stupid? Even with field curvature a good lens is always symmetrical around it's optical axis.
Sending it in for service feels like a total waste of time now.
*edit: this is one of the examples which I hadn't showed here before:
It shows how the bad corner (example 1) looks compared to the other corners (example 2). I did not touch the focus ring between shots at all. I can hardly believe how Zeiss can say this is probably user error??
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 04:16 PM · View previous versions
They basicly discarted all my examples that clearly prove the decentering of both copies and try to convince me that my testing is flawed. Plus they use the argument "we didn't get one single 21 Loxia returned for a misalignment."
We've discussed it before in this thread, but just like members like Jannik I think that doing a test at infinity is the best way to check for decentering. That way you don't have to be perfectly parallel to for example a planar subject. Just focus one corner at something in the distance and then move that subject to all 4 corners without touching the focus ring. All should look nearly identical. Zeiss disagrees!
They even talk about field curvature, but come on... do they expect their users are all stupid? Even with field curvature a good lens is always symmetrical around it's optical axis.
Sending it in for service feels like a total waste of time now.
*edit: this is one of the examples which I hadn't showed here before:
It shows how the bad corner (example 1) looks compared to the other corners (example 2). I did not touch the focus ring between shots at all. I can hardly believe how Zeiss can say this is probably user error??
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 04:16 PM · View previous versions
Feb 23, 2016 at 01:36 PM
p.42 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jochenb wrote:
Zeiss responded to my problems with this lens. I'm actually surprised by what they said.
They basicly discarted all my examples that clearly proof the decentering of both copies and try to convince me that my testing is flawed. Plus they use the argument "we didn't get one single 21 Loxia returned for a misalignment."
We've discussed it before in this thread, but just like members like Jannik I think that doing a test at inifinity is the best way to check for decentering. That way you don't have to be perfectly parallel to for example a planar subject. Just...Show more →
Gosh ... hmmm I have always believed that Zeiss been helpful and very customer-friendly
return it to the store Jochen
Zeiss responded to my problems with this lens. I'm actually surprised by what they said.
They basicly discarted all my examples that clearly proof the decentering of both copies and try to convince me that my testing is flawed. Plus they use the argument "we didn't get one single 21 Loxia returned for a misalignment."
We've discussed it before in this thread, but just like members like Jannik I think that doing a test at inifinity is the best way to check for decentering. That way you don't have to be perfectly parallel to for example a planar subject. Just...Show more →
Gosh ... hmmm I have always believed that Zeiss been helpful and very customer-friendly
return it to the store Jochen
Feb 23, 2016 at 03:15 PM
p.42 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I think you should ask them to see their "correct" test with a proof the lens is perfectly centered.
This is a bad sign as my Loxia 35/2 is there and it's decentered.
How did you get to talk to them about your issue? Was it using their online form or on the phone?
This is a bad sign as my Loxia 35/2 is there and it's decentered.
How did you get to talk to them about your issue? Was it using their online form or on the phone?
Feb 23, 2016 at 03:22 PM
p.42 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I guess they see admitting the rampant QC issues with various E mount lenses as more of a downside than standing behind their lenses.
Leica went through a similar quandary with the M9/MM sensor corrosion issue. They starting making noise to wiggle out of responsibility, and it caused such a furor they decided to go the other way and make good on all of them regardless of age.
Without a furor I doubt we will see much support from Zeiss or Sony, since the cost comes straight out of their pocket. It's up to the many loyal Sony/Zeiss shooters to hold them accountable by making it an issue, I think. The trouble is, bringing it up can sound like "sony bashing".
Leica went through a similar quandary with the M9/MM sensor corrosion issue. They starting making noise to wiggle out of responsibility, and it caused such a furor they decided to go the other way and make good on all of them regardless of age.
Without a furor I doubt we will see much support from Zeiss or Sony, since the cost comes straight out of their pocket. It's up to the many loyal Sony/Zeiss shooters to hold them accountable by making it an issue, I think. The trouble is, bringing it up can sound like "sony bashing".
Feb 23, 2016 at 03:55 PM
p.42 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
If that is their response to clearly decentering or misalignment, it should be brought to our attention and I'm glad Jochenb did.
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:09 PM
p.42 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I will tell about my experiences tomorrow.
Zeiss initial reaction to my decentered Loxia 2.8/21 nearly led me to sell all my Zeiss gear! I am really angry about that and I can undersand your disappointment.
Zeiss initial reaction to my decentered Loxia 2.8/21 nearly led me to sell all my Zeiss gear! I am really angry about that and I can undersand your disappointment.
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:12 PM
p.42 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
FWIW, I had a problem with a Zeiss ZE-mount lens last year, so it's not entirely restricted to E-mount models. I ordered a new 15mm ZE from B&H about 5 months ago. I check new acquisitions for decentering and other possible problems, and was surprised to find that the right side of the 15mm was grossly out of focus. Nothing subtle about it; the right 15% or so was extremely blurry. I can't imagine that it got past quality control if it was actually inspected, and wonder whether it may have been dropped or otherwise abused somewhere along the line. I returned it the next day for replacement, which B&H handled promptly; the replacement is perfect. So far, all of the other Zeiss lenses I've obtained have been first rate, both ZE- and E-mount.
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:28 PM
p.42 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
When I got my Batis 25 back in August, I noticed asymmetrical depth of field below f/8. Meaning I'd take a shot of something at distance at f/4 or f/5.6, and the blur in the foreground was not balanced. And I'm talking what appears to be a level shot on flat ground. They said at the time that they had no reports of issues with the Batis 25 and it could be my sensor. I had the a7R II on order (I was shooting with an a7R), so I said I'd try it again with the new camera.
Again I noticed similar behavior with the a7R Ii, but it is a little vexing. Almost like an element is shifting depending on which direction the focus is moving. And it very well be my imagination. At f/8 and smaller apertures it wasn't really a problem. But I did send it in late last week. I haven't heard anything, but I'll report back with their findings.
I haven't REALLY tested my Loxia 21 specifically for decentering, but I don't notice the strange behavior I found with the Batis 25 I have.
-Tim
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:33 PM
p.42 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
If that is their response to clearly decentering or misalignment, it should be brought to our attention and I'm glad Jochenb did.
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
I second that.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more in times of 43 MP (or even more) sensors.
Could it be possible, that even ZEISS can not produce a series of lenses, where the extremely high tolerances that are necessary for high megapixel sensors can not be achieved and reproduced ? How much influence has the mount on the camera? With so many pixels in 100% view and such a high resolution lens like the Loxia 21, is it possible one finds 'decentering' that is not caused by the lens but by the mount or sensor position. Remember: IBIS moves the sensor around all the time, day by day ...
How parallel is the sensor to the optical axis of the lens?
Just thinking ...
If that is their response to clearly decentering or misalignment, it should be brought to our attention and I'm glad Jochenb did.
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
I second that.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more in times of 43 MP (or even more) sensors.
Could it be possible, that even ZEISS can not produce a series of lenses, where the extremely high tolerances that are necessary for high megapixel sensors can not be achieved and reproduced ? How much influence has the mount on the camera? With so many pixels in 100% view and such a high resolution lens like the Loxia 21, is it possible one finds 'decentering' that is not caused by the lens but by the mount or sensor position. Remember: IBIS moves the sensor around all the time, day by day ...
How parallel is the sensor to the optical axis of the lens?
Just thinking ...
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:40 PM
p.42 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Here's a Batis 25 shot from last summer with the a7R @ f/4
Full Size
Here's a shot from a week or two ago with the a7R II @ f/5.6
Full Size
It always seems to be the lower right quadrant that seems to be wonky at times. It seems far to blurred to be just normal depth of field related blur. These shots seem relatively flat and the blurred area seems too large to explain. I don't see this behavior from my other lenses, granted the Batis has a pretty flat field...still though. Curious not to see what they come back with....
-Tim
 |
||
| http://www.devine.photography/img/s/v-2/p1351824837-6.jpg | ||
|
Full Size
Here's a shot from a week or two ago with the a7R II @ f/5.6
|
||
| http://www.devine.photography/img/s3/v43/p1611447319-6.jpg | ||
|
Full Size
It always seems to be the lower right quadrant that seems to be wonky at times. It seems far to blurred to be just normal depth of field related blur. These shots seem relatively flat and the blurred area seems too large to explain. I don't see this behavior from my other lenses, granted the Batis has a pretty flat field...still though. Curious not to see what they come back with....
-Tim
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:45 PM
p.42 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
PEKA62 wrote:
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.I second that.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more...Show more →
I still think that Zeiss QC is better than the rest but as we can see, it's far from perfect.
Decentering may be more visible with today's high MP bodies, but it would still be easily detected with a lesser MP sensor. In some cases, the issue could be caused by sensor to camera mount parallelism but it would have to happen with all other lenses tested on that body.
I can tell you that my Loxia 21/2.8 and 50/2 lenses are perfectly aligned and my 35/2 is clearly not.
Fred Miranda wrote
If that is their response to clearly decentering or misalignment, it should be brought to our attention and I'm glad Jochenb did.Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more...Show more →
I still think that Zeiss QC is better than the rest but as we can see, it's far from perfect.
Decentering may be more visible with today's high MP bodies, but it would still be easily detected with a lesser MP sensor. In some cases, the issue could be caused by sensor to camera mount parallelism but it would have to happen with all other lenses tested on that body.
I can tell you that my Loxia 21/2.8 and 50/2 lenses are perfectly aligned and my 35/2 is clearly not.
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:55 PM
p.42 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
tsdevine wrote:
Here's a Batis 25 shot from last summer with the a7R @ f/4
http://www.devine.photography/img/s/v-2/p1351824837-6.jpg
Full Size
Here's a shot from a week or two ago with the a7R II @ f/5.6
http://www.devine.photography/img/s3/v43/p1611447319-6.jpg
Full Size
It always seems to be the lower right quadrant that seems to be wonky at times. It seems far to blurred to be just normal depth of field related blur. These shots seem relatively flat and the blurred area seems too large to explain. I don't see this behavior from my other lenses, granted the Batis has a pretty flat field...still though. Curious not to see what they come back with....
-Tim
Tim,
When in doubt, I would do a specific decentering test. One that would be precise and definitive so you can be sure there's clearly an issue.
Here's a Batis 25 shot from last summer with the a7R @ f/4
http://www.devine.photography/img/s/v-2/p1351824837-6.jpg
Full Size
Here's a shot from a week or two ago with the a7R II @ f/5.6
http://www.devine.photography/img/s3/v43/p1611447319-6.jpg
Full Size
It always seems to be the lower right quadrant that seems to be wonky at times. It seems far to blurred to be just normal depth of field related blur. These shots seem relatively flat and the blurred area seems too large to explain. I don't see this behavior from my other lenses, granted the Batis has a pretty flat field...still though. Curious not to see what they come back with....
-Tim
Tim,
When in doubt, I would do a specific decentering test. One that would be precise and definitive so you can be sure there's clearly an issue.
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:58 PM
p.42 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.I second that.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more in times of 43 MP (or even more) sensors.
Could it be possible, that even ZEISS can not produce a series of lenses, where the extremely high tolerances that are necessary for high megapixel sensors can not be achieved and reproduced ? How much influence has the mount on the camera? With so many pixels in 100% view and such a high resolution lens like the Loxia 21, is it possible one finds 'decentering' that is not caused by the lens but by the mount or sensor position. Remember: IBIS moves the sensor around all the time, day by day ...
How parallel is the sensor to the optical axis of the lens?
Just thinking ...I still think that Zeiss QC is better than the rest but as we can see, it's far from perfect.
Decentering may be more visible with today's high MP bodies, but it would still be easily detected with a lesser MP sensor. The issue could be caused by sensor to camera mount parallelism but it would have to happen with all other lenses tested on that body.
I can tell you that my Loxia 21/2.8 and 50/2 lenses are perfectly aligned and my 35/2 is clearly not.
Hi Fred,
I would say that overall, Leica has the highest quality control though even they screw up from time to time. I would expect that Zeiss would probably be next but it is Cosina that is doing pretty much all of their assembly and manufacture. When Contax was made by Kyocera, I wonder if they had better QC than Cosina.
Rich
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:54 PM · View previous versions
PEKA62 wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
If that is their response to clearly decentering or misalignment, it should be brought to our attention and I'm glad Jochenb did.Perhaps they can't really adjust Loxia lenses because of the way they were designed so their strategy is to put the blame on the customer (Client's test is flawed, we know better). If this is done excessively, it could potentially create a PR problem for them.
My 35/2 is clearly decentered and I will update this thread with their answer.
My copy of the 21 Loxia is decentered, too, read some pages back where I showed some samples.
I was in contact with ZEISS and sent them my test shots, got the same reply from their support like Jochenb got.
(we doubt your test can prove anything bla bla,...)
I did not send them my lens for check yet because I had no time to really shoot it intensively and see if the decentering causes any issues in everyday use, but I will as soon as I see it there.
I am thinking about production tolerances and quality control more and more in times of 43 MP (or even more) sensors.
Could it be possible, that even ZEISS can not produce a series of lenses, where the extremely high tolerances that are necessary for high megapixel sensors can not be achieved and reproduced ? How much influence has the mount on the camera? With so many pixels in 100% view and such a high resolution lens like the Loxia 21, is it possible one finds 'decentering' that is not caused by the lens but by the mount or sensor position. Remember: IBIS moves the sensor around all the time, day by day ...
How parallel is the sensor to the optical axis of the lens?
Just thinking ...
Decentering may be more visible with today's high MP bodies, but it would still be easily detected with a lesser MP sensor. The issue could be caused by sensor to camera mount parallelism but it would have to happen with all other lenses tested on that body.
I can tell you that my Loxia 21/2.8 and 50/2 lenses are perfectly aligned and my 35/2 is clearly not.
Hi Fred,
I would say that overall, Leica has the highest quality control though even they screw up from time to time. I would expect that Zeiss would probably be next but it is Cosina that is doing pretty much all of their assembly and manufacture. When Contax was made by Kyocera, I wonder if they had better QC than Cosina.
Rich
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:54 PM · View previous versions
Feb 23, 2016 at 04:59 PM