[Madaboutpix]

I have purchased 387 lenses over the past seven years because upon testing I have found every one of them to be slightly decentered when blown up to 500x. This is really disturbing. It has prevented me from going on a real photo shoot for the past seven years. Besides that, I'm frustrated that there are no good lenses out there.

Your honesty is commendable, James. As it is painful to hear of the consequences for your fun with photography, given that even a cursory glance at the images on your website suggests that you should be a pretty talented photographer.

Knowing myself as I do, I've always taken a more hands-on than scientific approach to testing my lenses - precisely because I don't want to lose what photography has come to mean to me. On receiving a lens (or as soon as time allows) I do quick and fairly casual checks for front or back focussing, sharpness wide open and likely best aperture, as well as major decentering issues. I will also check for obvious mechanical and manufacturing issues. As a rule, I buy new from reliable retailers with a no-BS return policy. Which allows me to try out the lens in some RL shooting where I will try to get a feel of a lens's strengths, weaknesses, and character. If I like what I see there, even with a little pixel-peeping, I will keep that lens; if I don't, I will return it. Which, knock on wood, I've never felt compelled to do.

Does this mean that all my lenses are optically perfect? Likely not. But they seem to be good enough for the photography I do. Before I buy a lens, I do a fair amount of research to see what I can expect from a specific lens. I would reject a clearly below-par copy of a lens, but I don't obsess about whether I have a 79%, 83%, or 98% copy of it. Perfect lenses don't exist, and near-perfect ones are pretty rare and forbiddingly expensive. I wonder how many iconic images out there have been shot with less-than-perfect gear. There's so much more to photography than shooting Siemens stars, one would think.

[FantasticMrFox]

Your honesty is commendable, James. As it is painful to hear of the consequences for your fun with photography, given that even a cursory glance at the images on your website suggests that you should be a pretty talented photographer.

I think you missed the irony in his post - no worries, happens to most Germans

[goldenarrow]

Quality control for the last 6 or so years has been bad from all manufacturers.

Very frustrating because we the buyers are paying good money (read: huge and hard earned money) and yet we are cheated by them.

Makes me think they are always in a hurry to make a buck!

Not just cameras. Cars. Gadgets. You name it!

WE are the Quality Control!

[Madaboutpix]

I think you missed the irony in his post - no worries, happens to most Germans

Dang, I did it again. (We Germans do have a sense of humour; it's just that we don't always suspect it in others.) You must be speaking from experience, then, as someone of German origin?

[FantasticMrFox]

Dang, I did it again. (We Germans do have a sense of humour; it's just that we don't always suspect it in others.) You must be speaking from experience, then, as someone of German origin?

I'm not only of German origin, I'm a 100% born and raised German citizen But my humour has always been leaning a bit more towards the British ways - watched a lot of Monty Python as a teenager.

[Madaboutpix]

Taking something to the next level assumes a shocking new meaning when you realize it's your own stupidity you've taken to the next level.

The exorbitant numbers and exaggerations should have been obvious enough, but somehow my passion for photography, and empathy for its woes, must have clouded my judgement.

[FantasticMrFox]

Taking something to the next level assumes a shocking new meaning when you realize it's your own stupidity you've taken to the next level.

The exorbitant numbers and exaggerations should have been obvious enough, but somehow my passion for photography, and empathy for its woes, must have clouded my judgement.

It appears you're being a bit harsh on yourself

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

There is only one manufacturer who makes those lenses = Sigma. I went through about 5~6 copies of the sigma 8-16mm until I was sent a copy from sigma japan which was tested by sigma techs, and myself, and is perfectly centered. Though I have to admit that was one of the hardest lenses I have ever tested - 8mm isn't a common focal length, I had to alter the optical projection apparatus on my testing bench to completely fill the fov with the test pattern on that lens.

Yeah, you can build an extreme UWA lens that is potentially decent at an affordable price point, but assembling it is another story. Surprised that the 8-16 is that troublesome given the overall favorable reviews. Many years ago I had the 15-30 for some time, but it wasn't quite as sharp as its reputation (color rendering and size bothered me more), but that was before I was aware of the decentering issues - so never tested it.

Earlier this year I bought a refurbished 12-24 that was wildly off - and Sigma USA took one look at a JPEG I sent them and immediately said "send it in and we'll send you a replacement." The second one is about 95% better for centering when shot wide open, but at least it isn't exhibiting the CA problems inherent in extreme decentering. It is far sharper than the 15-30 with less distortion, vignetting and far less CA. When you read the few reviews and tests regarding that lens you really wonder because the majority of tests say moderate to heavy CA, but some of them say "negligible." In any event, I don't view minor decentering as a huge problem because when you get beyond about 90 degrees FoV anyone who is shooting faster than f/8 (or even f/11 in good light) really is just asking for trouble no matter how good the optics.

Bottom line, I almost certainly will be sticking with my 8mm and 14mm MF lenses from - umm, that Korean manufacturer - that has provided me 3 for 3 superb optics (others have had problems), and will sell the virtually unused Sigma which was purchased extremely cheaply for mercenary purposes in the first place, and will fetch a handsome payment when the FF body finally gets rolling.

---------- Post added 11-21-2015 at 12:03 PM ----------

I'm not only of German origin, I'm a 100% born and raised German citizen But my humour has always been leaning a bit more towards the British ways - watched a lot of Monty Python as a teenager.

How do you take photographs with no arms and no legs, then?

---------- Post added 11-21-2015 at 12:08 PM ----------

Dang, I did it again. (We Germans do have a sense of humour; it's just that we don't always suspect it in others.) You must be speaking from experience, then, as someone of German origin?

I'm a Russian-descented Jew, but some of my closest friends are entirely German. They're all good sports even when they have no idea as they prefer rye bread to my shoddy attempts at wry humor.

[FantasticMrFox]

How do you take photographs with no arms and no legs, then?

Like a chicken

[Madaboutpix]

I'm a Russian-descented Jew, but some of my closest friends are entirely German. They're all good sports even when they have no idea as they prefer rye bread to my shoddy attempts at wry humor.

I'm just an English-decentered German who speaks an infinite deal of nothing - and probably fell into that trap of irony because informal experience indeed suggests that some camera owners out there get so hung up about about sample variation that they let it ruin their fun with photography.

That said, I do think that we, as consumers, should not cease demanding decent quality control, because if we stop insisting on it, we aren't going to get it.

As for the bread, why not have the best of both worlds - tasty rye bread and wry humour!

[BigMackCam]

This thread has now moved on to other topics However, I thought I'd drop back in and say thanks to those who responded. In actual fact, I found out through normal viewing of my photos (no 2:1 pixel peeping) that my 16-85 is decentered, and noticeably so (rotating the camera also rotates the softness. So, sadly, that is going back to the supplier. Second copy I've had (the first had a loose lens element internally). I really do like the lens, so I'm going to ask them if they can have it serviced under warranty - hopefully they can, and I don't mind waiting if I end up with a fully working lens. If not, I'll have to go with a refund and decide whether to chance a third copy <sigh>...

[stevebrot]

Back in time, almost nobody looked at pictures at 100% crop equivalent magnification.

That is unless you were planning on printing and put the negative in an enlarger. Grain focusing was and remains the standard. That being said, I would routinely evaluate negatives with a loupe prior to attempting an enlargement. Depending on the loupe, the magnification is about the same as viewing at full resolution on screen.


Steve

[stevebrot]

WE are the Quality Control!

The CFO at a company I worked for once remarked, in regard to QA, "We prefer to let our fruit ripen in other people's baskets".


Steve

[luftfluss]

This thread has now moved on to other topics However, I thought I'd drop back in and say thanks to those who responded. In actual fact, I found out through normal viewing of my photos (no 2:1 pixel peeping) that my 16-85 is decentered, and noticeably so (rotating the camera also rotates the softness. So, sadly, that is going back to the supplier. Second copy I've had (the first had a loose lens element internally). I really do like the lens, so I'm going to ask them if they can have it serviced under warranty - hopefully they can, and I don't mind waiting if I end up with a fully working lens. If not, I'll have to go with a refund and decide whether to chance a third copy <sigh>...

Unfortunately, you are not the first person who has encountered this decentering issue on the 16-85, from what I've read online. Hopefully, it can be serviced and eventually provide results worth the hassle.

[Jonathan Mac]

I do testing if I have similar lenses that I intend to use for the same thing and don't want to keep both. I sold my Sigma 30/1.4 because I have the DAL 35/2.4 & DA 35/2.8 limited, for example.

For older manual lenses, which cost far less, I sometimes test them even though I plan on keeping both, but that's out of interest and I want to see if they live up to the reputations they've earned in the decades they've been available. I do that because I enjoy it, not because it's needed in any way.

If I pay a lot for a new lens and I have the possibility of returning it if faulty then I will take some test shots and pixel-peep to make sure there are no obvious problems like de-centring.