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.44 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
rji2goleez wrote:
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
Yes, that's true. Fred has a good one too.
My intent was not to keep you guys away from buying Zeiss lenses, just wanted to share my experiences.
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
Yes, that's true. Fred has a good one too.
My intent was not to keep you guys away from buying Zeiss lenses, just wanted to share my experiences.
Feb 24, 2016 at 07:00 AM
p.44 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
While I agree ymmv for lens decentering but the theme of poor service and Zeiss not acknowledging a problem is very concerning
Feb 24, 2016 at 07:02 AM
p.44 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss will probably start saying, if you shoot with the A7RII, just crop off the problem side and be done with it! That's what the 42 MP is for! Ha!
I get a used copy tomorrow from a lucky find on a video forum's B&S. I will check it out and test it. He got one of the first ones in stores when they became available to the public. Maybe I will get lucky!
I get a used copy tomorrow from a lucky find on a video forum's B&S. I will check it out and test it. He got one of the first ones in stores when they became available to the public. Maybe I will get lucky!
Feb 24, 2016 at 10:33 AM
p.44 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jannik Peters wrote:
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.
He basically told you that only an Otus lens can be perfectly centered. To me, this reinforces the possibility that Loxia lenses can't be fully adjusted/repaired. (Just like most FE lenses). Just as a comparison, I purchased a Sony FE 28mm f/2 for around $450(!) and it's perfectly symmetric lens. All corners/sides are identical when performing a variety of decentering tests. (Upside-down, Gletscherbruch, etc.)
If they designed a lens lacking ways to be adjusted/repaired, they should replace it.
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I have heard from them. I will keep this thread updated.
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.
He basically told you that only an Otus lens can be perfectly centered. To me, this reinforces the possibility that Loxia lenses can't be fully adjusted/repaired. (Just like most FE lenses). Just as a comparison, I purchased a Sony FE 28mm f/2 for around $450(!) and it's perfectly symmetric lens. All corners/sides are identical when performing a variety of decentering tests. (Upside-down, Gletscherbruch, etc.)
If they designed a lens lacking ways to be adjusted/repaired, they should replace it.
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I have heard from them. I will keep this thread updated.
Feb 24, 2016 at 11:09 AM
p.44 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I read this and cringe at a employee saying this to a customer. Heck I would not even say that to a member as a joke. Starting to feel lucky I have a good copy of the 21mm and actually even the 2 Sony 28mm F2 that I bought one used and one new where the same. My only real issue was the 35mm FE 1.4
I feel really bad for those affected by this but Zeiss makes wonderful glass and hate to see this.
I feel really bad for those affected by this but Zeiss makes wonderful glass and hate to see this.
Feb 24, 2016 at 11:13 AM
p.44 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I would have had to bit my lip very hard to not come back with a question of what price point and from which lens lines can we expect good quality control and quality from Zeiss?
Sometimes my mouth has a mind of its own....
I assume this is a person issue, and not a company culture issue. My dealings with Zeiss (in the US) have always been positive.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
He basically told you that only an Otus lens can be perfectly centered. To me, this reinforces the possibility that Loxia lenses can't be fully adjusted/repaired. (Just like most FE lenses). Just as a comparison, I purchased a Sony FE 28mm f/2 for around $450(!) and it's perfectly symmetric lens. All corners/sides are identical when performing a variety of decentering tests. (Upside-down, Gletscherbruch, etc.)
If they designed a lens lacking ways to be adjusted/repaired, they should replace it.
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I...Show more →
View previous versions
Sometimes my mouth has a mind of its own....
I assume this is a person issue, and not a company culture issue. My dealings with Zeiss (in the US) have always been positive.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jannik Peters wrote
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.If they designed a lens lacking ways to be adjusted/repaired, they should replace it.
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I...Show more →
View previous versions
Feb 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM
p.44 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I agree that it would be a shame if this ends up in a Zeiss bash but having just sent mine back (through my dealer) I do find it a little disconcerting to hear some of these stories about Zeiss's attitude. I gave my dealer a CD with some images which I feel show the problem and one of the staff in the shop who knows me well agreed that the images were soft on one side and it was sent to Zeiss along with the lens. If they say it is OK I would be really pis***d off and would insist that it be replaced if they can't repair it. I do though feel for my dealer who as always is very helpful and hope that Zeiss do sort it out as otherwise I have to get the dealer to replace it which hardly seems fair.
Feb 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM
p.44 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
tsdevine wrote:
I assume this is a person issue, and not a company culture issue. My dealings with Zeiss (in the US) have always been positive.
Yes, that is definitely the case here!
The second person that is currently repairing my two broken lenses (MP100, 2.8/21) is very friendly. I really have to point that out, not every Zeiss employee is arrogant and unfriendly!
I wish you all good luck with your repairs.
I assume this is a person issue, and not a company culture issue. My dealings with Zeiss (in the US) have always been positive.
Yes, that is definitely the case here!
The second person that is currently repairing my two broken lenses (MP100, 2.8/21) is very friendly. I really have to point that out, not every Zeiss employee is arrogant and unfriendly!
I wish you all good luck with your repairs.
Feb 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM
p.44 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I think Fred hit the nail on the head and a question needs to be answered. If the lenses indeed cannot be adjusted/repaired what happens to the lenses that people return? Do they just get recycled to less discerning customers or do they get binned?
Feb 24, 2016 at 12:30 PM
p.44 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Funny you say that. B&H or Amazon I looked up the FE 35 1.4 used I think it's Amazon but they had 4 from there warehouse. Clearly returns
Feb 24, 2016 at 12:34 PM
p.44 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
It's a bit concerning really. Don't get me wrong I love my Zeiss lenses, I have the 21mm, a 50mm MP and a 100mm MP all ZF.2 variety. They are built like tanks and I know that people have damaged them and had them repaired and they have returned good as new. Can the same be said of the Loxia?
Feb 24, 2016 at 02:31 PM
p.44 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I have heard from them. I will keep this thread updated.
I sent them my 21/2.8, too, this morning, to let them check for decentering and adjustment if necessary/possible.
Their service in my optitian's business has always been excellent. That's what I expect from the camera/lens department, too.
So, let's see what comes back, I'll keep the thread informed.
Edited on Feb 25, 2016 at 02:16 AM · View previous versions
I have sent my Loxia 35/2 to service last Tuesday. They got it on Thursday (about a week ago) but so far I have heard from them. I will keep this thread updated.
I sent them my 21/2.8, too, this morning, to let them check for decentering and adjustment if necessary/possible.
Their service in my optitian's business has always been excellent. That's what I expect from the camera/lens department, too.
So, let's see what comes back, I'll keep the thread informed.
Edited on Feb 25, 2016 at 02:16 AM · View previous versions
Feb 24, 2016 at 02:49 PM
p.44 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
naturephoto1 wrote:
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
Frankly, though obviously I love my Leica M9 and most of my Leica glass, I don't assume Leica quality control is any better than anyone else, because there is little objective evidence it is.
The sony/zeiss lens issues have been reported anecdotally since december 2013, but still it's been hard to put all the individual stories in context.
Lensrentals however has put them in context:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
If you read up on Roger's site it seems Canon has the best overall QC with lenses, but Nikon is extremely good with some lenses. Zeiss is well behind Canon with their Otus consistency, if I am reading things correctly. Certainly they are not even close to leading the industry in QC for lenses.
Leica makes so few lenses they cannot even be rated by Roger in this way, but anecdotally I have read plenty of accounts of bad copies, including with 50 APO. Worse, I read about them coming back from Leica no better than before. For this reason I send my lenses to DAG when I have a problem, never to Leica.
My experience in dealing with Leica NJ on a shutter replacement did not fill me with confidence, but the camera is working fine anyway
In general I wish we would get beyond the bashing vs fanboy paradyne, and realize we photographers are on the same side, and all deserve our money's worth, regardless of the system.
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
Frankly, though obviously I love my Leica M9 and most of my Leica glass, I don't assume Leica quality control is any better than anyone else, because there is little objective evidence it is.
The sony/zeiss lens issues have been reported anecdotally since december 2013, but still it's been hard to put all the individual stories in context.
Lensrentals however has put them in context:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
If you read up on Roger's site it seems Canon has the best overall QC with lenses, but Nikon is extremely good with some lenses. Zeiss is well behind Canon with their Otus consistency, if I am reading things correctly. Certainly they are not even close to leading the industry in QC for lenses.
Leica makes so few lenses they cannot even be rated by Roger in this way, but anecdotally I have read plenty of accounts of bad copies, including with 50 APO. Worse, I read about them coming back from Leica no better than before. For this reason I send my lenses to DAG when I have a problem, never to Leica.
My experience in dealing with Leica NJ on a shutter replacement did not fill me with confidence, but the camera is working fine anyway
In general I wish we would get beyond the bashing vs fanboy paradyne, and realize we photographers are on the same side, and all deserve our money's worth, regardless of the system.
Feb 24, 2016 at 03:37 PM
p.44 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Talking about Roger, here is his list of lens companies with the best support/service:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1415522/0#13434573
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1415522/0#13434573
Feb 24, 2016 at 04:29 PM
p.44 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
For what it is worth, I mentioned the decentering issue on my just completed ZEISS customer satisfaction survey, and suggest that others do the same.
Feb 25, 2016 at 06:44 AM
p.44 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
After my horrible contact with Zeiss I looked at a lot of full size photos from others and what's interesting is that I often see (slight) asymmetries. I guess I'm more picky than many people.
I know that there are always tolerances, but is it unfair to expect a near perfect aligned lens? How do you guys look at it? Are you fine with decentering if it's only slight or do you always expect perfect alignment?
Just wondering.
I know that there are always tolerances, but is it unfair to expect a near perfect aligned lens? How do you guys look at it? Are you fine with decentering if it's only slight or do you always expect perfect alignment?
Just wondering.
Feb 25, 2016 at 06:53 AM
p.44 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
If it's slight, and I don't really notice it in normal shooting, I would probably let it slide. If it shows as very obvious in my normal shooting, I will tend to use the lens less and less....so at that point to me it's serious and I'd pursue getting it resolved.
-Tim
Feb 25, 2016 at 07:55 AM
p.44 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
tsdevine wrote:
If it's slight, and I don't really notice it in normal shooting, I would probably let it slide. If it shows as very obvious in my normal shooting, I will tend to use the lens less and less....so at that point to me it's serious and I'd pursue getting it resolved.
-Tim
Same here.
Feb 25, 2016 at 08:41 AM
p.44 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I had a Zeiss ZF.2 18/3.5 bought used, that showed obvious asymmetry. This lens is known to have curvature of field and the MTF graphs inducate some astigmatism. I was able to document the problem, and Zeiss, Oberkochen fixed it promptly and their charge was modest, I reckon. The lens came back and worked flawlessly. In my country, the importer sends all Zeiss repairs to Oberkochen, and adviced me that I could do so myself as it would be quicker.
To get a grip of what was was wrong, I photographed wooden houses, with boards that gave me horizontal and vertical lines, by which to judge sharpness. As it turned out there was a significant difference in sharpness between the horizontal and vertical lines, which varied between the left and right sides of the images. I took meassures to ensure parallell planes. I described my findings in the letter accompaning the lens. Also I shot landscapes and eveluated sharpness of objects various places in the landscapes. My conclusion was skewed zones of sharpness. I was able to do more than just the "Gletscherbruch" test to investigate and describe the problem with my 18/3.5.
To get a grip of what was was wrong, I photographed wooden houses, with boards that gave me horizontal and vertical lines, by which to judge sharpness. As it turned out there was a significant difference in sharpness between the horizontal and vertical lines, which varied between the left and right sides of the images. I took meassures to ensure parallell planes. I described my findings in the letter accompaning the lens. Also I shot landscapes and eveluated sharpness of objects various places in the landscapes. My conclusion was skewed zones of sharpness. I was able to do more than just the "Gletscherbruch" test to investigate and describe the problem with my 18/3.5.
Feb 25, 2016 at 08:54 AM