Interestingly, with over 70 lenses reported now, not a single bad one with serial number below 10,000. Over 10,000, about 40% of the lenses seem to exhibit the focus shift.
0-9999
1800050 - OK - Jaree
1800221 - OK - MedicineMan404
1801098 - OK - Trollmannx*
1802584 - OK - 311erin
1802604 - OK - GMPhotography
1802612 - OK - ylimehajile
1802708 - OK - maestrofilms
1802957 - OK - gatorine
1803037 - OK - C_n_red_again
1803448 - OK - borge
1803501 - OK - iammikie
1803600 - OK - Migapa
1803903 - OK - AGeoJO
1803942 - OK - avalon27
1803970 - OK - Stevvi
1804209 - OK - Jacimi
1804585 - OK - dseelyjr
1804673 - OK - scopedude
1804903 - OK - MikeEvangelist
1805190 - OK - Al Chemist
1805392 - OK - kaioyang
1805500 - OK - NumberOne*
1807283 - OK - ifixfxs
1807299 - OK - Deanh
1807300 - OK - Chuck Coyne
1807877 - OK - tsdevine
1807982 - OK - sandycrane
1808000 - OK - RobCD
1808128 - OK - jamato8
1808157 - OK - echelonphoto
1808338 - OK - neuf11
1808529 - OK - liftedspirit
1808754 - OK - Rob L
1808946 - OK - petercod*
1809056 - OK - IzelPhotograph
1809081 - OK - marathon
1809365 - OK - kdrk888
1809638 - OK - MikeEvangelist
1809940 - OK - lambers
1809979 - OK - Iman113
>10000
1810255 --- OK --- eyal
1810270 --- OK --- jim251
1810718 --- Bad - jamato8
1811001 --- Bad - rji2goleez (placeholder serial number)
1811241 4 - Bad - mapgraphs
1811437 --- Bad - darrellc
1811600 3 - OK --- darrellc
1811652 A - Bad - snapsy
1811673 --- OK --- mjm6
1811679 --- OK --- dpirazzi
1811820 --- OK --- Jacknut16
1812012 1 - OK --- GMPhotography
1812278 --- Bad - dscobie62
1813250 6 - Bad - cswinton
1813792 --- OK --- Uncle Chip
1814000 --- OK --- LynnDavidCole
1814215 --- Bad - JVJL
1814245 B - OK --- col4bin
1814324 9 - OK --- Coronis
1814355 --- OK --- outward
1814359 --- Bad - macmurali
1814372 --- OK --- isu89
1814467 --- OK --- Gunzorro
1814471 --- Bad - Taff16
1814529 --- Bad - mspencer1
1814679 M - OK --- DRose44
1814769 --- OK --- fnf_
1814906 --- Bad - photographlu
1815504 A - OK --- Melte*
1816810 B - OK --- snapsy
1817445 G - OK --- Alex W
1817727 --- OK --- lacix*
Summary for lenses over #10,000
Good - 20 - 63%
Bad - 12 - 38%
I knew my copy is good but after reading all these focus shift issues I did a simple test, it looks good to me. I hope my test was done right. BTW, the dumbbell is not for me
SN#1809365, 12-2017
First shot: @F4, AF-S to acquire focus first, then switched the button on the lens barrel from AF to MF, took the shot.
kdrk888 wrote:
I knew my copy is good but after reading all these focus shift issues I did a simple test, it looks good to me. I hope my test was done right. BTW, the dumbbell is not for me
Your last shot alone makes it easy to see that it's fine. At f/8 in AF-S mode, my copy would have made the book look about as sharp as the arm of the sofa. It's not subtle.
cswinton wrote:
Your last shot alone makes it easy to see that it's fine. At f/8 in AF-S mode, my copy would have made the book look about as sharp as the arm of the sofa. It's not subtle.
Go enjoy your lens!
Sorry to hear all these issues, Cameron. I sold the good copy of 24-70 GM you sold me because of this 24-105. The lighter weight and longer FL is more useful to me than F2.8. Hope you will get a good copy soon,
kdrk888 wrote:
Sorry to hear all these issues, Cameron. I sold the good copy of 24-70 GM you sold me because of this 24-105. The lighter weight and longer FL is more useful to me than F2.8. Hope you will get a good copy soon,
Douglas
I'd love the 24-70 GM at the moment...
I'm sure I'll end up with a good copy in the future. From those who have good ones, it seems like it's a great combination of features / size / quality!
I have the same issue with my lens purchased last week. I am bringing it back to Sony Center this afternoon and I will post the serial number later on.
I tested the lens on A7R2 (firmware 4.00), A7R and A6000 and the issue with the lens is only with the A7R2 body. On the old A7R and A6000 it works smoothly.
Never had a lens do this, but the more I have used this one, the better it gets. Sure doesn't make sense, totally but I am not changing how I shoot or anything else. I have shot for many years, many, and use the same style but in controlled situations the images are a little sharper with better contrast. Interesting, to say the least. I shoot a lot of documentation of petroglyphs and notice that the crystal striation of the granite is cleaner now and sharper. This has progressed for that past 2 weeks or so.
photographlu wrote:
I have the same issue with my lens purchased last week. I am bringing it back to Sony Center this afternoon and I will post the serial number later on.
I tested the lens on A7R2 (firmware 4.00), A7R and A6000 and the issue with the lens is only with the A7R2 body. On the old A7R and A6000 it works smoothly.
This could be very key info if others see the same systematic behavior.
I love Roger's closing remark: "...Maybe paint some flames on the side, too." (ie. it's the hottest 24-105 he's tested! But he hasn't tested the Sony yet.)
timballic wrote:
I love Roger's closing remark: "...Maybe paint some flames on the side, too." (ie. it's the hottest 24-105 he's tested! But he hasn't tested the Sony yet.)
Parariss wrote:
This could be very key info if others see the same systematic behavior.
My replacement arrives today and if its a good one I will be very relieved especially after two faulty ones. However if it is another bad one using my A7RIII I will also test it on my A6500 before sending it back.
photographlu wrote:
I tested the lens on A7R2 (firmware 4.00), A7R and A6000 and the issue with the lens is only with the A7R2 body. On the old A7R and A6000 it works smoothly.
That's beacuse A7R and A6000 is focusing differently than A7R2. Tomorrow I'll will try 3rd copy of the lens - previous 2 had focus shift problems.
RCicala wrote:
Well, he hasn't published the Sony yet . . . .
Get back to work.
Seriously folks I rent from Rogers company all the time but a good trick is rent this lens test it than if good you can buy the rental. Do check if you can buy this since it’s very new to market from lensrentals
I'm done testing my 10 copy samples, but instead of writing it up I'm back here analyzing one that misfocuses to see if I can find something out about that problem. Hopefully have it out this week? It takes longer to write it up than it does to test it. . . .
I don't suppose 'it's really good' is going to satisfy anyone, huh?
RCicala wrote:
I don't suppose 'it's really good' is going to satisfy anyone, huh?
For us lensaholics, this is like the Super Bowl. We need the verdict as to whether this is plus or minus 1% better than the reigning champion, the Sigma. We want bragging rights!
