Fred Miranda wrote: Jochenb wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: Jochenb wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: Jochenb wrote:
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I tried 2 copies of the 135 GM and both had identical decentering. I also showed proof of it.
We are now a few months later and I decided to try my luck again. To my big surprise the 2 next copies are also decentered!
What makes it even stranger is that the decentering looks exactly the same on all. That's 4 identically decentered copies in a row! Crazy.
Whenever such a thing happens everyone would look at the camera. It would make more sense if the mount was slightly misalligned. However: I tried this on 3 different cameras (A7III, A7RIII and A9) and all show the same behavior.
Here's an example from copy #4.
Manually focused on the top right corner at infinity.
Than same shot with the camera upside down without changing focus. This shows a tilted focal plane right away.
Top right:
Bottom left:
Look how the focus is on the chimney instead of the building.
This is from copy #3.
A planar subject, shot at F3.2. Manually focused on the center.
Top right:
Bottom left:
There must have gone something wrong in the production line, with a least one batch of identically faulty lenses. The FE 55 also often had a weaker left side when it was just released. I reminds me of that.
I envy you guys with good copies. What's actually in focus looks great from this lens.
I'd say bad luck! I tested 2 copies of this lens and they were both 100% centered. One was a review copy from Sony and the other was a production model (first batch) from B&H Photo. (My personal copy)
I've had bad luck so many times, but what makes this really unusual is that all 4 copies show exactly the same decentering. The plane of focus is tilted exactly the same on all.
With other "bad luck" lenses it really was random.
I remember your issues with the Loxia 21 when it came out. I went through 3 copies as well.
There are some lenses with very low copy variation. From my experience they are the Loxia 50/2, Voigtlander 65 and Batis 135/2.8. I would not hesitate buying these lenses from the used market.
PS: I thought the FE 135/1.8 also had very low variation but your experience tells a different story. Thanks for posting.
Yes my third Loxia 21 finally was a good one. The 50 Loxia was great at first try. With the 85 Loxia I gave up after a few bad copies. And so on and so on.
The funny thing is I usually am more lucky with lenses that have bad reputation when it comes to copy variation (16-35 GM, FE 35/1.4, Voigtlander 15 III,...).
I share these examples because I want people that might encounter the same won't think they're the only one having problems.
I've encountered issues with pretty much all Loxia lenses (except for the 50/2), all Batis lenses (except for the 135/2.8) and all ZA lenses (no exception!). I just received a second copy of the 35/1.8 and it's badly decentered. (first copy was just 'ok')
On the Voigtlander side, my CV 21/1.4, CV 65/2 and 110/2.5 were perfect from the start. However, some members reported issues with the former. Great success with the Sigma 45 (tried 2 copies and they were both well-centered)
Zero chance to convince me to test my 35/1.8. I like worriless sleep
Sep 15, 2019 at 02:20 PM
Previous versions of vdo1's message #14981277 « Sony FE 135mm f/1.8 GM Review »
