Ripolini wrote:
I don't think Voigtländer sells huge numbers of the 28/2 AL, so the number of reported cases of lenses that aren't properly centered could be statistically significant and quite annoying, suggesting that the brand's manufacturing standards—which should make the quality of its mechanical construction one of its strong points—are falling apart
There are reports of decentering with pretty much all lenses. What we don't know is how often it happens. It could be 10 percent (one in ten) for a given lens. It could be one in ten thousand. The difference between one in ten and one in ten thousand is a pretty big difference. It would be possible in theory to sample lenses and test them and get a decent estimate, but in practice developing a sample procedure would be extremely difficult. Lens rentals blog, which of course has several copies of many lenses, tried to develop such a procedure. They made a little progress but their estimates were only very rough estimates. They were better than trying to estimate the occurence of bad copies from internet reports, but they only narrowed the estimate a little bit. Their tests are still available for some older lenses.
Perhaps noteworthy is Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses, which were, and in some cases still are, made by Cosina did not appear to have either a higher rate or a lower rate of bad copies than lenses made by the big three (Sony, Canon, & Nikon). Perhaps a slightly lower rate, but if so not by much. I don't think we will ever have clear evidence of whether certain lenses are more prone to bad copies. We will just have rumors and sometimes those rumors will be right and sometimes they will be wrong and we won't know when they are right and when they are wrong.
Mar 19, 2026 at 05:41 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
Well, I haven't drawn any conclusions because without quantitative data, I can't: I've just put forward a hypothesis to consider.
Yes, and it is a reasonable hypothesis, but I think the opposite hypothesis that Voigtlander lenses have less bad copies is also reasonable and as you say without data there is no good way to test between the hypotheses.
Me being a lay person I feel like how severe will a problem have to be for me to notice it? Do I need to look at it on a monitor at 100% resolution sitting at a desk, or on a TV? Or making large wall size print?
Maybe all of the copies of all the lenses I have in my kit are good, or all are bad, I just never felt like those are the things the bugs me in a photo. Stuff that stood out to me way more often is if I made a mistake is framing something, or missing the angle I want or there are dust spots in my sky.
RacingManiac wrote:
Me being a lay person I feel like how severe will a problem have to be for me to notice it? Do I need to look at it on a monitor at 100% resolution sitting at a desk, or on a TV? Or making large wall size print?
Maybe all of the copies of all the lenses I have in my kit are good, or all are bad, I just never felt like those are the things the bugs me in a photo. Stuff that stood out to me way more often is if I made a mistake is framing something, or missing the angle I want or there are dust spots in my sky....Show more →
I usually just find a nice straight brick wall and take a shot at portrait distance at every aperture. If one side of the images is consistently softer I swap the lens. Getting a good lens takes very little time and effort, and having a great lens makes using and keeping it long term far more enjoyable.
If you have a pretty badly decentered lens you can easily notice it at normal viewing distances (on the wall/monitor/etc).
Steve Spencer wrote:
There are reports of decentering with pretty much all lenses. What we don't know is how often it happens. It could be 10 percent (one in ten) for a given lens. ....
Well, manual-focus lenses with metal construction and tight mechanical tolerances, like the ones from back in the day, should have fewer issues than modern AF/VR lenses. Strangely enough, I own two Voigtlander lenses (Apo-Lanthar), and one of them was replaced because the first one was off-center. Then I bought a Nokton 28/1.5, and that one was also slightly off-center. I returned it partly because I wasn’t thrilled with the Nokton’s image quality. In short, of the four Voigtlander lenses I’ve tried, two were off-center. Fifty percent of the samples weren’t good enough on my 24-megapixel camera bodies. Who knows what happens with higher-resolution bodies... My Zeiss lenses are fine, as are my Nikkors; the only exception was an AF-S VR lens that showed issues after over 15 years of usage ...
My 40+ y.o. Nikkor AI 50/1.4 seems more reliable. Good luck with your next Voigtlander purchase
P.S.: I forgot... Last year I bought a brand-new Zeiss ZF.2 25/2 from a German store. It’s a lens that’s been out of production for years. It arrived, I tried it out—the image quality was good, but it was off-center. It must have been a leftover from inventory or a lens that had been returned multiple times by the original buyer: a defective sample that had been stuck with some wholesaler or distributor. I returned it.
I mean I get the test, I just don't necessarily seeing it impact what I normally use it for I guess? For a shot like the building shot before, I probably would have stopped down a few stops and I'd imagine the OOF tolerance zone would be bigger and to me probably would not have been an issue. If I am shooting wide open with a subject off center, I probably would be composing the shot and especially in this case with a MF lens, focus magnify where my subject is in frame where it is in composition. If its a problem of where I am focusing and can't get my subject in focus, different story, but that shouldn't be an issue with a MF lens anyway unless something is majorly borked.
In the case of this particular lens when I got it, buying it in person in Tokyo in a store where there was but a singular copy, I probably wouldn't be able to do the test, I guess reviewing it back in my hotel room(so I am not looking just on my camera screen), see if its bad, then going back to the store to return the sample and hoping to find another one elsewhere. All the while just killing a day where I could be out I guess shooting photos while I was in Tokyo on vacation.
Mar 19, 2026 at 10:17 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
Well, manual-focus lenses with metal construction and tight mechanical tolerances, like the ones from back in the day, should have fewer issues than modern AF/VR lenses. Strangely enough, I own two Voigtlander lenses (Apo-Lanthar), and one of them was replaced because the first one was off-center. Then I bought a Nokton 28/1.5, and that one was also slightly off-center. I returned it partly because I wasn’t thrilled with the Nokton’s image quality. In short, of the four Voigtlander lenses I’ve tried, two were off-center. Fifty percent of the samples weren’t good enough on my 24-megapixel camera bodies. Who knows what happens with higher-resolution bodies... My Zeiss lenses are fine, as are my Nikkors; the only exception was an AF-S VR lens that showed issues after over 15 years of usage ...
My 40+ y.o. Nikkor AI 50/1.4 seems more reliable. Good luck with your next Voigtlander purchase
P.S.: I forgot... Last year I bought a brand-new Zeiss ZF.2 25/2 from a German store. It’s a lens that’s been out of production for years. It arrived, I tried it out—the image quality was good, but it was off-center. It must have been a leftover from inventory or a lens that had been returned multiple times by the original buyer: a defective sample that had been stuck with some wholesaler or distributor. I returned it....Show more →
As I am sure you know, such small number of samples could just be bad luck or they could be meaningful. There is no way to know from an inference stand point. That it is bad luck is not that unlikely.
Personally, I have had about 25 Voigtlander and Zeiss lens made by Cosina (I am getting a new one today as well) and zero of them have been decentered. Perhaps I just have had good luck. Even 25 is a very small sample and really can't tell me anything about the incidence of bad copies.
As I am sure you know, personal experience can also be—and in fact is, in many cases—the main reason for the incompleteness and illusory nature of the picture we form of the world: a picture that, to be more reliable and useful, needs to be supplemented with information we obtain through means other than direct observation. However, in the absence of data that manufacturers will never share with us, all we have left is the imperfection of our own personal experience.
One question I always have when I see discussions about de-centered lenses is,
"Have we reached a point where sensor and monitor resolution have exceeded manufacturing tolerances?"
I am sure that every lens manufacturer has a QA/QC check of their products before they are released to the market. Lens manufacturing is not of such a volume where this would be impractical. Cosina, for example, with their experience with higher market lenses, certainly knows how to manufacture a good product and it seems counter productive to release lenses that do not meet their standard. Let's say the best construction tolerance for lens placement is +/- .2 MM, but the sensor can pick up lens placement divergences as low as .05 MM. That would make it seem that the lens was poorly manufactured, when I reality you are measuring conditions that exceed what is physically possible in the manufacturing process. It would be interesting to find out what the tolerance standards are for different optics manufacturers. It would tell us quite bit about what we should expect out of a purchase.
Mar 19, 2026 at 11:28 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
As I am sure you know, personal experience can also be—and in fact is, in many cases—the main reason for the incompleteness and illusory nature of the picture we form of the world: a picture that, to be more reliable and useful, needs to be supplemented with information we obtain through means other than direct observation. However, in the absence of data that manufacturers will never share with us, all we have left is the imperfection of our own personal experience.
Yes, I agree. We do have the Lens Rentals blog data too but it is pretty dated now. We can also choose to recognize the limits of our own observations and decide not to make any definitive or strong conclusions because of those limitations. I think given that lack of data, that is likely the wise strategy for making inferences.
Kevner wrote:
One question I always have when I see discussions about de-centered lenses is,
"Have we reached a point where sensor and monitor resolution have exceeded manufacturing tolerances?"
I have three 24 Mpix cameras. I am not sure their sensors have exceeded manufacturing tolerances. Most of my lenses work well.
Anyway, no one has forced manufacturers to produce sensors with ever-higher resolutions except their shareholders, who are trying to sell us products that only 0.01% of photographers actually need.
Of course, precision engineering comes at a cost... higher production costs = lower profits at the same retail price.
"P.S.: I forgot... Last year I bought a brand-new Zeiss ZF.2 25/2 from a German store. It’s a lens that’s been out of production for years. It arrived, I tried it out—the image quality was good, but it was off-center. It must have been a leftover from inventory or a lens that had been returned multiple times by the original buyer: a defective sample that had been stuck with some wholesaler or distributor. I returned it."
Keep looking...It's worth getting a good copy of the ZF.2 25/2.
I just did the brick wall test with my Voightlander Z 28 f/2 APO on a ZF. I didn't notice any decentering. And compared it to my Nikon 28 f/2.8 SE. And yikes. The Voightlander is soooo much sharper. I already knew that. I just did the test with both lenses.
mascejos wrote:
I just did the brick wall test with my Voightlander Z 28 f/2 APO on a ZF. I didn't notice any decentering. And compared it to my Nikon 28 f/2.8 SE. And yikes. The Voightlander is soooo much sharper. I already knew that. I just did the test with both lenses.
Thanks for the tip and link. I did the test as per described in your link in my backyard on a tripod. My copy still looks good. Thanks again. I will be bringing this lens to Italy vacation in May.
Ripolini wrote:
I have three 24 Mpix cameras. I am not sure their sensors have exceeded manufacturing tolerances. Most of my lenses work well.
Anyway, no one has forced manufacturers to produce sensors with ever-higher resolutions except their shareholders, who are trying to sell us products that only 0.01% of photographers actually need.
Of course, precision engineering comes at a cost... higher production costs = lower profits at the same retail price.
The other thing no one considers is whether the sensor is properly mounted and not contributing to any de-centering issues.
Mar 19, 2026 at 06:55 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
Yes, I'd love getting a good copy of the ZF.2 25/2
There actually is some data from Lens Rentals Blog on variance in the Zeiss 25 f/2. It seems to have relatively low variance, but not as low as some. Here is the link:
Kevner wrote:
The other thing no one considers is whether the sensor is properly mounted and not contributing to any de-centering issues.
Indeed, I think our ability to record on a 24, 36, 45, or 61MP sensor and then zoom in on a monitor has exceeded the traditional, practical-to-mass-manufacture tolerances on both lenses and cameras. A slight misalignment of the flange to sensor on a given camera body might create the appearance of tilt or mild decentering. I discovered 2.5 years after purchasing a new Z7II that the flange to sensor distance on that body didn't match my other two Z bodies. Fun. /s
