I presume that lens maufacturers have at least the same facilities to test a lens as reviewers have. Then why do they release for sale lenses that they know are not as good as they should be knowing that they will get bad reviews for them? I can understand (almost)when it's a cheap lens to manufacture, but when it's about their top lenses it's a bit of a mistery!
[quote name='jpmfc46' timestamp='1327469607' post='15209']
I presume that lens maufacturers have at least the same facilities to test a lens as reviewers have. Then why do they release for sale lenses that they know are not as good as they should be knowing that they will get bad reviews for them? I can understand (almost)when it's a cheap lens to manufacture, but when it's about their top lenses it's a bit of a mistery!
[/quote]
Business. They know that -say- 20% of their manufactured lenses are actually substandard. They know also that most consumers will not notice manufacturing defects so only a -say- fourth of the lenses will be send to service. It is a simple optimization model to balance QC and service costs + customer satisfaction effects.
However, frankly, it is not their fault. Consumers demand ever more extreme designs at very low prices. Just compare lenses made in the 70s to today's standard. Most lenses were made of metal with smooth controls ... and all with a QC sticker of them. The lenses were substantially more expensive compared to the salaries at the time. Obviously the manufacturers discovered that they can sell substantially more lenses made of cheap plastic and lesser standards. Because "we" want it that way.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1327473861' post='15211']
Business. They know that -say- 20% of their manufactured lenses are actually substandard. They know also that most consumers will not notice manufacturing defects so only a -say- fourth of the lenses will be send to service. It is a simple optimization model to balance QC and service costs + customer satisfaction effects.
However, frankly, it is not their fault. Consumers demand ever more extreme designs at very low prices. Just compare lenses made in the 70s to today's standard. Most lenses were made of metal with smooth controls ... and all with a QC sticker of them. The lenses were substantially more expensive compared to the salaries at the time. Obviously the manufacturers discovered that they can sell substantially more lenses made of cheap plastic and lesser standards. Because "we" want it that way.
[/quote]
Well, that's not a very good state of affairs, one out of 5 lenses shouldn't pass the QC! And that's not counting the lenses that shouldn't have been designed at all, the like of those that receive only 2 or 2.5 stars however in the "pro" segment there's seem to be quite a number of lenses which receive top mark for mechanical quality but rate quite average in optical quality, surely the designers should have been aware of this fact?
01-25-2012, 08:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2012, 06:17 PM by Klaus.)
[quote name='jpmfc46' timestamp='1327476766' post='15214']
Well, that's not a very good state of affairs, one out of 5 lenses shouldn't pass the QC! And that's not counting the lenses that shouldn't have been designed at all, the like of those that receive only 2 or 2.5 stars however in the "pro" segment there's seem to be quite a number of lenses which receive top mark for mechanical quality but rate quite average in optical quality, surely the designers should have been aware of this fact?
[/quote]
Well, there are few pro lenses with a ** rating and often there are reasons for that. Just take the Canon 50/1.2L as an example. The extreme aperture makes it nearly impossible to design a higher performance lens. It is a purpose-made lens with strengths in low light and bokeh, less so corner sharpness.
As far as QC is concerned. Internally we chuckle a little about a competing website where the owner proudly presented his Leica images as reference for the immense quality. Even after loose inspection a centering defect was very obvious in his shots. So if even (some) professionals don't see issues, less so "normal" users will do. Thus 1 in 5 is Ok ... from a business perspective. We've to be realistic here. BTW, only 3% are defective according to the industry, BTW, but I suspect that this refers to electronic failures, not centering.
FWIW, I'm aware of at least one manufacturer without any manufacturing QC. So far for "made in Japan" ...
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1327479577' post='15216']
Well, there are few pro lenses with a ** rating and often there are reasons for that. Just take the Canon 50/1.2L as an example. The extreme aperture makes it nearly impossible to design a higher performance lens. It is a purpose-made lens with strengths in low light and bokeh, less so corner sharpness.
As far as QC is concerned. Internally we chuckle a little about a competing website where the owner proudly presented his Leica images as reference for the immense quality. Even after loose inspection a centering defect was very obvious in his shots. So if even (some) professionals don't see issues, less so "normal" users will do. Thus 1 in 5 is Ok ... from a business perspective. We've to be realistic here. BTW, only 3% are defective according to the industry, BTW, but I suspect that this refers to electronic failures, not centering.
FWIW, I'm aware of at least manufacturer without any manufacturing QC. So far for "made in Japan" ...
[/quote]
Can you tell us who that is? My guess is Tokina!
