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.43 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
naturephoto1 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 probablt 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
Yes, perhaps the issue is not directly Zeiss fault. (Just like with Zony lenses)
Perhaps the representatives answering emails or web forms are not really knowledgable about these issues. I would advise sending the lens directly to Zeiss service and then see what happens. That's what I did.
Fred Miranda wrote
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.
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 probablt 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
Yes, perhaps the issue is not directly Zeiss fault. (Just like with Zony lenses)
Perhaps the representatives answering emails or web forms are not really knowledgable about these issues. I would advise sending the lens directly to Zeiss service and then see what happens. That's what I did.
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:04 PM
p.43 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
What bothers me most is, that ZEISS says 'Your simple test shots do not prove anything'.
What?
I am not stupid, I am a photographer and optometrist/optician.
If I focus my lens on a subject with the uppermost right edge of the frame and it is sharp there and then I decide to put the subject in the lower left of the frame without touching the lens, I expect my subject to be in perfect focus.
Period.
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:17 PM · View previous versions
What?
I am not stupid, I am a photographer and optometrist/optician.
If I focus my lens on a subject with the uppermost right edge of the frame and it is sharp there and then I decide to put the subject in the lower left of the frame without touching the lens, I expect my subject to be in perfect focus.
Period.
Edited on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:17 PM · View previous versions
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:11 PM
p.43 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
When I get it back, I will give it a go. The "brick wall test" was inconclusive, but I think the issue crops up when I'm focusing near infinity. And I don't have a big enough brick wall.
I'll try the object at infinity test next time. We'll see what Zeiss says first though as I already sent it in.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
tsdevine wrote
Here's a Batis 25 shot from last summer with the a7R @ f/4http://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
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 05:11 PM
p.43 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred, I contacted them by email. I got a super fast reply the next morning.
Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys me even more than the decentered lenses. Bad lenses happen, especially on a demanding 42MP sensor (I agree, Peka). Ignoring the issues is much worse in my book. They seem to try to confuse the client into thinking it's not the lens, but their own fault. Really not OK.
Want to know how they ended their message? By saying "BTW, we never got back any decentered 21 Loxias, except those that had been dropped."
Maybe it's just me, but these words leave room for interpretation. They could always say it has been dropped and again point the finger at others this way.
Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys me even more than the decentered lenses. Bad lenses happen, especially on a demanding 42MP sensor (I agree, Peka). Ignoring the issues is much worse in my book. They seem to try to confuse the client into thinking it's not the lens, but their own fault. Really not OK.
Want to know how they ended their message? By saying "BTW, we never got back any decentered 21 Loxias, except those that had been dropped."
Maybe it's just me, but these words leave room for interpretation. They could always say it has been dropped and again point the finger at others this way.
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:20 PM
p.43 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
After years of good service from Zeiss, perhaps we should give them an initial benefit of the doubt and assume the person who replied was simply a frontman who didn't know who he was dealing with. It is unacceptable of course, but I'm holding out to see what happens with Tim and Fred's copies. It's frustrating when you're the one getting bad service and I understand the sentiment. I'm still shooting mine but I guess I should do a test (something I rarely do) to see if this is more than just a few bad apples.
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:23 PM
p.43 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
That is both sad and nasty behaviour. Doesn't reflect my service experience though. I sent in my screwed up Distagon 21mm, they quickly acknowledged it was decentered in multiple ways (?). I got it back in 3 weeks after sending it in.
However, I would be royally pissed off if that happened to me. Time to bring on the social media...
However, I would be royally pissed off if that happened to me. Time to bring on the social media...
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:27 PM
p.43 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jochenb wrote:
Fred, I contacted them by email. I got a super fast reply the next morning.
Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys...Show more →
That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
Fred, I contacted them by email. I got a super fast reply the next morning.
Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys...Show more →
That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:31 PM
p.43 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys me even more than the decentered lenses. Bad lenses happen, especially on a demanding 42MP sensor (I agree, Peka). Ignoring the issues is much worse in my book. They seem to try to confuse the client into thinking it's not the lens, but their own fault. Really not OK.
Want to know how they ended their message? By saying "BTW, we never got back any decentered 21 Loxias, except those that had been dropped."
Maybe it's just me, but these words leave room for interpretation. They could always say it has been dropped and again point the finger at others this way.That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
That's quite possible. I'm still in contact with them so we'll see. I think I'll prefer a refund from the store though (and wait for a third copy). They agreed with me right away.
After such an answer from Zeiss I fear the "we didn't do anything, the lens is within tolerances" even more if I'd send it in for service.
Jochenb wrote
Fred, I contacted them by email. I got a super fast reply the next morning.Jannik and Peka both had decentered 21 Loxias too and that's in this thread alone. Zeiss still uses the standard "you're the first one with these complaints", a sad classic in the aftersales world in general.
I'm really disappointed in my favorite brand in photography (for how long?). I always had the impression that they had better QC than most. Only 1 lens ever was decentered. With other brands I was almost constantly struggling. BTW, Tim: my 25 Batis was fine.
However, their response annoys me even more than the decentered lenses. Bad lenses happen, especially on a demanding 42MP sensor (I agree, Peka). Ignoring the issues is much worse in my book. They seem to try to confuse the client into thinking it's not the lens, but their own fault. Really not OK.
Want to know how they ended their message? By saying "BTW, we never got back any decentered 21 Loxias, except those that had been dropped."
Maybe it's just me, but these words leave room for interpretation. They could always say it has been dropped and again point the finger at others this way.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
That's quite possible. I'm still in contact with them so we'll see. I think I'll prefer a refund from the store though (and wait for a third copy). They agreed with me right away.
After such an answer from Zeiss I fear the "we didn't do anything, the lens is within tolerances" even more if I'd send it in for service.
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:42 PM
p.43 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
That's what I'd fear, too, like I said before.
I think we are at the edge of what performance actual technology can deliver these days (2016) with given size/weight/aperture/price tag on a high resolution sensor ...
I think we are at the edge of what performance actual technology can deliver these days (2016) with given size/weight/aperture/price tag on a high resolution sensor ...
Feb 23, 2016 at 05:52 PM
p.43 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Hi,
twoeye wrote:
I am having a hard time deciding between this and the Batis 25, but focal length and compact size of the 2,8/21 is perfect, it is even lighter than I would have expected.
It attracts me more the 25 mm. Batis than the 21 mm. Loxia. This due to its versatility for documentary photography, architectural shots with less distortion and for landscapes. The only drawback of the 25 mm. Batis is that reading a B&H review the 25 mm. Batis is not focusing properly at infinity. What has been your experience with the lens?
Thank you, kind regards,
igmolinav : ) !!!
twoeye wrote:
Jochenb wrote
Exactly the lens I've been waiting for!It attracts me more the 25 mm. Batis than the 21 mm. Loxia. This due to its versatility for documentary photography, architectural shots with less distortion and for landscapes. The only drawback of the 25 mm. Batis is that reading a B&H review the 25 mm. Batis is not focusing properly at infinity. What has been your experience with the lens?
Thank you, kind regards,
igmolinav : ) !!!
Feb 23, 2016 at 07:00 PM
p.43 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
I did it another way - classic via phone. I talked directly to a sevice employee and described my problem, what I did and what I found out. Then, exactely the same thing that PEKA described happened. The employee told me that it is a big fault to test for decentering this way. He compared the following way: "You want to drive like a Ferrari although you have a Corolla". In Germany, we call this way of checking for decentering "Gletscherbruch-Method", and he just told me: "stop doing that Gletscherbruch"... If you want perfect wideangle corner performance, get the Otus 1.4/28. You can not expect this from a 1.500€-lens.
When they found out that I published the decentering in Phillips blog, they sent me a pretty unfriendly email. I was really pissed at this moment and nearly sent my lens back to the dealer. The only thing that kept me away from doing this was the review at the blog which is still not finished due to the inifinity stop issue. It's in service again.
Then christmas came, everyone enjoyed their holidays and another very friendly employee took over my service case. From that point on, the communication and the service was on a completely different level and I am glad that I know who I can talk to now.
That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
I did it another way - classic via phone. I talked directly to a sevice employee and described my problem, what I did and what I found out. Then, exactely the same thing that PEKA described happened. The employee told me that it is a big fault to test for decentering this way. He compared the following way: "You want to drive like a Ferrari although you have a Corolla". In Germany, we call this way of checking for decentering "Gletscherbruch-Method", and he just told me: "stop doing that Gletscherbruch"... If you want perfect wideangle corner performance, get the Otus 1.4/28. You can not expect this from a 1.500€-lens.
When they found out that I published the decentering in Phillips blog, they sent me a pretty unfriendly email. I was really pissed at this moment and nearly sent my lens back to the dealer. The only thing that kept me away from doing this was the review at the blog which is still not finished due to the inifinity stop issue. It's in service again.
Then christmas came, everyone enjoyed their holidays and another very friendly employee took over my service case. From that point on, the communication and the service was on a completely different level and I am glad that I know who I can talk to now.
Feb 24, 2016 at 01:15 AM
p.43 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
igmolinav wrote:
Hi,
It attracts me more the 25 mm. Batis than the 21 mm. Loxia. This due to its versatility for documentary photography, architectural shots with less distortion and for landscapes. The only drawback of the 25 mm. Batis is that reading a B&H review the 25 mm. Batis is not focusing properly at infinity. What has been your experience with the lens?
Thank you, kind regards,
igmolinav : ) !!!
This is something I have not tested until now, but turning the OLED display to "ON" also for AF and focusing the lens at a distant subject (150m), the display reads around 25m when focused manually, 11-14m when focused with AF (AF-S flexible spot M) in line with the B&H customer review you have read.
Examining the images on the computer showed that the MF-images were in focus while the AF-ones were slightly front-focused.
At very short focus distances (‹1m) AF accuracy is very good.
(With my Batis 85 the lens display reads ca. 150m when the lens is focused at infinity both in AF and MF. )
Hi,
It attracts me more the 25 mm. Batis than the 21 mm. Loxia. This due to its versatility for documentary photography, architectural shots with less distortion and for landscapes. The only drawback of the 25 mm. Batis is that reading a B&H review the 25 mm. Batis is not focusing properly at infinity. What has been your experience with the lens?
Thank you, kind regards,
igmolinav : ) !!!
This is something I have not tested until now, but turning the OLED display to "ON" also for AF and focusing the lens at a distant subject (150m), the display reads around 25m when focused manually, 11-14m when focused with AF (AF-S flexible spot M) in line with the B&H customer review you have read.
Examining the images on the computer showed that the MF-images were in focus while the AF-ones were slightly front-focused.
At very short focus distances (‹1m) AF accuracy is very good.
(With my Batis 85 the lens display reads ca. 150m when the lens is focused at infinity both in AF and MF. )
Feb 24, 2016 at 01:16 AM
p.43 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jannik Peters wrote:
Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.I did it another way - classic via phone. I talked directly to a sevice employee and described my problem, what I did and what I found out. Then, exactely the same thing that PEKA described happened. The employee told me that it is a big fault to test for decentering this way. He compared the following way: "You want to drive like a Ferrari although you have a Corolla". In Germany, we call this way of checking for decentering "Gletscherbruch-Method", and he just told me: "stop doing that Gletscherbruch"... If you want perfect wideangle corner performance, get the...Show more →
Awful.
I now got a new reply from Zeiss, were they also mention that "Gletscherbruch-Method":
"Unfortunately, those strange "Gletscherbruch" test method where images are taken in a row with the camera/lens orientated in different directions has nothing to do with the typcial still photo applications and the approved lens adjustment and test methods used in the lens manufacturing industry since decades. Too many factors can influence the results, so the resulting pictures do not tell much about possible symmetrie issues of the lens in use."
Pathetic.
Fred Miranda wrote
That's what I'm saying...Don't contact them via email/webform. These representatives do not seem to know much about it. They are just customer service reps with perhaps standardized answers.Just send the lens in to service so an expert technician can evaluate it correctly.
Awful.
I now got a new reply from Zeiss, were they also mention that "Gletscherbruch-Method":
"Unfortunately, those strange "Gletscherbruch" test method where images are taken in a row with the camera/lens orientated in different directions has nothing to do with the typcial still photo applications and the approved lens adjustment and test methods used in the lens manufacturing industry since decades. Too many factors can influence the results, so the resulting pictures do not tell much about possible symmetrie issues of the lens in use."
Pathetic.
Feb 24, 2016 at 04:13 AM
p.43 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
This implies that they are not able to adjust anything inside the lens to really fix it and so they come up with all kinds of excuses. Could it be these Loxia are metal on the outside and cheap plastic + lenses inside? Any word from LensRentals? RRroger?
Feb 24, 2016 at 04:32 AM
p.43 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Has this web site, http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/test/dezentrierung/dezentrierung.html , become sufficiently well known in Germany, for a decentering test to be called the "Gletscherbruch" method?
If a Loxia 21/2.8 isn't a Ferrari, I would still expect it to be a Lexus rather than a Corolla.
If a Loxia 21/2.8 isn't a Ferrari, I would still expect it to be a Lexus rather than a Corolla.
Feb 24, 2016 at 05:06 AM
p.43 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
"Unfortunately, those strange "Gletscherbruch" test method where images are taken in a row with the camera/lens orientated in different directions has nothing to do with the typcial still photo applications and the approved lens adjustment and test methods used in the lens manufacturing industry since decades. Too many factors can influence the results, so the resulting pictures do not tell much about possible symmetrie issues of the lens in use."
.I myself use this Gletscherbruch method since decades and have testet dozens of lenses this way, and the very most of them were just fine, nothing to complain. The latest was a ZE 135 APO I received just this morning brand new, and what can I say, Gletscherbruch-Test shows it's perfectly centered...
Feb 24, 2016 at 05:09 AM
p.43 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
bjornthun wrote:
Has this web site, http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/test/dezentrierung/dezentrierung.html , become sufficiently well known in Germany, for a decentering test to be called the "Gletscherbruch" method?
Yes, it is linked at least once in every German photography forum.
bjornthun wrote:
If a Loxia 21/2.8 isn't a Ferrari, I would still expect it to be a Lexus rather than a Corolla.
That's at least what I was thinking when bought the lens.
Has this web site, http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/test/dezentrierung/dezentrierung.html , become sufficiently well known in Germany, for a decentering test to be called the "Gletscherbruch" method?
Yes, it is linked at least once in every German photography forum.
bjornthun wrote:
If a Loxia 21/2.8 isn't a Ferrari, I would still expect it to be a Lexus rather than a Corolla.
That's at least what I was thinking when bought the lens. Feb 24, 2016 at 05:09 AM
p.43 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jannik Peters wrote:
Yes, it is linked at least once in every German photography forum.
That's at least what I was thinking when bought the lens.
Since this Zeiss representative, knew about it, other customers most likely have contacted Zeiss about a possibly faulty lens citing the Gletscherbruch method.
bjornthun wrote
Has this web site, http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/test/dezentrierung/dezentrierung.html , become sufficiently well known in Germany, for a decentering test to be called the "Gletscherbruch" method?bjornthun wrote
If a Loxia 21/2.8 isn't a Ferrari, I would still expect it to be a Lexus rather than a Corolla. That's at least what I was thinking when bought the lens. Since this Zeiss representative, knew about it, other customers most likely have contacted Zeiss about a possibly faulty lens citing the Gletscherbruch method.
Feb 24, 2016 at 05:15 AM
p.43 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I was about to get a Loxia 21mm on order. After reading about all these issues I'll stick with my Distagon.
Feb 24, 2016 at 06:11 AM
p.43 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Mnd1 wrote:
I was about to get a Loxia 21mm on order. After reading about all these issues I'll stick with my Distagon.
Not every lens has this issue. So far I am very satisfied with my copy and I'm sure there are others as well. YMMV
I was about to get a Loxia 21mm on order. After reading about all these issues I'll stick with my Distagon.
Not every lens has this issue. So far I am very satisfied with my copy and I'm sure there are others as well. YMMV
Feb 24, 2016 at 06:55 AM