[Martin_MM]

First of all - big THANKS for this web, so hard to find unbiased reviews these days (and especially of lenses) and you seem to be doing fantastic job here!!



Now to my question...



Reading the review of Canon 24-70L, I couldn´t believe you had to try 4 copies to find a good (but not the excellent) one. Then - when buying my new full frame set - I tried both the Nikon 24-70 and the Canon 24-70. And surprisingly, my experience exactly matched the one of yours! I tried 3 copies of Canon 24-70 and 2 of them was visibly different (soft) at f2.8. Nikon´s 3 copies of 24-70 were almost the same, all sharp. This is shocking, isnt it? But not to bash Canon only, I had the same terrible experience with Nikkor 17-55/2.8 some time ago - 2 copies unbelievably and unacceptably soft at wide end at f2.8, only the last one was sharp. Ok, maybe I would accept that with 18-55 kit zooms but not with the 1700EUR lenses!!!



Of course I know you would have to print quite a large prints to see the difference on paper but still, viewing them 1:1 on screen showed really big differences which one couldn´t get over with just saying "it doesn´t matter at all".



So my questions to you - reviewers (or anybody with rich experience with lenses) is:



1) Can you say which brand´s lenses have the most sample variation differences?? You have tested extensively hundreds of lenses and I´m sure you have got an idea here.



2) Could you possibly bring a review of sample variations of lets say some of the most used lenses (like 24-70, 70-200/2.8 ?). I´m sure I´m not the only one to be very interested in this!





Thank you,



Martin

[Klaus]

This is a frequent question ... and the answer is still the same. :-)



Basically it depends on a combination of design complexity, build quality, speed and retail price.



Design complexity - well, the more lens elements and/or VR the higher the risk of a misalignment - that's really common sense I think.

Build quality - if you've got a plastic lens with one or two moving inner lens tubes it should also be fairly obvious that it's not a lens for eternity.

Speed - the faster a lens the higher are the QC requirements. Centering defects are often hidden by a sufficient depth-of-field.

Retail price (also relative to other lenses in its class) - the retail price is also correlated to the amount of QC put into a lens.



So the "worst" lenses are something like those extreme zoom range lenses with duo-cam system and image stabilizer (e.g. 18-270/3.5-6.3 VC).

The best ones are moderately fast primes like a Carl-Zeiss Tessar T* 45mm f/2.8.

[HarryLally]

[quote name='Martin_MM' date='13 June 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1276433353' post='469']

First of all - big THANKS for this web, so hard to find unbiased reviews these days (and especially of lenses) and you seem to be doing fantastic job here!!



Now to my question...



Reading the review of Canon 24-70L, I couldn´t believe you had to try 4 copies to find a good (but not the excellent) one. Then - when buying my new full frame set - I tried both the Nikon 24-70 and the Canon 24-70. And surprisingly, my experience exactly matched the one of yours! I tried 3 copies of Canon 24-70 and 2 of them was visibly different (soft) at f2.8. Nikon´s 3 copies of 24-70 were almost the same, all sharp. This is shocking, isnt it? But not to bash Canon only, I had the same terrible experience with Nikkor 17-55/2.8 some time ago - 2 copies unbelievably and unacceptably soft at wide end at f2.8, only the last one was sharp. Ok, maybe I would accept that with 18-55 kit zooms but not with the 1700EUR lenses!!!



Of course I know you would have to print quite a large prints to see the difference on paper but still, viewing them 1:1 on screen showed really big differences which one couldn´t get over with just saying "it doesn´t matter at all".



So my questions to you - reviewers (or anybody with rich experience with lenses) is:



1) Can you say which brand´s lenses have the most sample variation differences?? You have tested extensively hundreds of lenses and I´m sure you have got an idea here.



2) Could you possibly bring a review of sample variations of lets say some of the most used lenses (like 24-70, 70-200/2.8 ?). I´m sure I´m not the only one to be very interested in this!





Thank you,



Martin

[/quote]

[HarryLally]

The attached article should help answer your questions, at least in part:



http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35



Michael





Sorry, still don't have the hang of replying here. No idea why my reply has been separated from the question above.

[Guest]

[quote name='HarryLally' date='14 June 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1276525136' post='502']

The attached article should help answer your questions, at least in part:

[url="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35"]http://www.lensrenta...-repair-data-35[/url][/quote]



In addition, [url="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts"]http://www.lensrenta...and-other-facts[/url]



"Lens variation isn't always random...



While not studied, there has long been a lot of talk that certain lenses had “bad batches”... Our own experience supports this...



The Canon 300 f4 IS was one of our most trouble-free lenses, but we purchased 6 copies last December, of which 4 developed electrical problems. None of about 30 other copies bought earlier or later had that problem, we only saw it in that one batch of lenses....



Before the Fanboys among you gear up (pun intended again) to use one sentence out of this to claim your brand is better than their brand (I actually read a psychological study on why people feel the need to do that, perhaps another article some day, but the summary is it says a lot more about the Fanboy than it does the product in question) there’s plenty of evidence that there is variation among every brand."

[mst]

[quote name='Martin_MM' date='13 June 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1276433353' post='469']

1) Can you say which brand´s lenses have the most sample variation differences?? You have tested extensively hundreds of lenses and I´m sure you have got an idea here. [/quote]



The lensrentals essay gives a rough guidance. IMO the rules of thumb is: higher risk with third party lenses. And (regardless of brand) the more complex the lens, the higher the risk to get a lemon (as Klaus already mentioned above).



The really important conclusion is, though: there is sample variation with all brands.



[quote name='Martin_MM' date='13 June 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1276433353' post='469']

2) Could you possibly bring a review of sample variations of lets say some of the most used lenses (like 24-70, 70-200/2.8 ?). I´m sure I´m not the only one to be very interested in this!

[/quote]



Nope, sorry. We'd have to test hundreds of copies of a given lens, preferrably from sources distributed around the globe, to produce data that is even remotely reliable.



-- Markus

[Martin_MM]

Klaus: Thank you, Klaus. However, I asked about something little bit different than why there exists samples variation (I can imagine why) ;-). But thank you anyway, interesting input for me, too.



HarryLally+Thw+Mst: Thanks for your posts and very interesting links. Exactly what I was looking for! Very interesting!



Markus: OK, you are probably right (with the sample variation testing). I didn´t know that the variations are mosty present in the whole lens batches and it´s not a problem pieace by piece that much....



One more question to you: Why aren´t you testing the Leica lenses? Of course I mean the "real" Leica, Solms (and the M9 lenses), not the Panasonic with pre-paid "Leica" label. Is it going to change in the future? I got a feeling the M9 has been quite a bit success and moreover the Leica lenses have been a benchmark of quality for decades so it would be very interesting to test something like the legendary 35/f1,4, wouldn´t it?

[mst]

[quote name='Martin_MM' date='15 June 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1276589598' post='532']

I didn´t know that the variations are mosty present in the whole lens batches and it´s not a problem pieace by piece that much....[/quote]



It's actually more of a piece by piece problem (IMO), but when tested seriously one would need to check for batch problems, too.



[quote name='Martin_MM' date='15 June 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1276589598' post='532']

Why aren´t you testing the Leica lenses? Of course I mean the "real" Leica, Solms (and the M9 lenses), not the Panasonic with pre-paid "Leica" label. Is it going to change in the future?

[/quote]



Yes, definitely. In fact I already announced upcoming Leica tests in April in the old forum, however a few things have hindered a launch of the reviews. First of all, there's a huge backlog of Nikon reviews that need to be published first. The M9 reviews are more of a "hobby", something I almost forced Klaus to accept <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> and consequently of low priority. In addition, I'm having a little trouble with one Leica lens (backfocus, who would have thought ...), so that lens and the camera have spend a few weeks at Solms already and thus were unavailable for testing. The issue is not resolved yet and I'm afraid I'll have to send in at least the lens once more.



In April, I posted this image of our test camera (and that lens, a Heliar 50/3.5, will of course be reviewed, too):









[quote name='Martin_MM' date='15 June 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1276589598' post='532']

I got a feeling the M9 has been quite a bit success and moreover the Leica lenses have been a benchmark of quality for decades so it would be very interesting to test something like the legendary 35/f1,4, wouldn´t it?

[/quote]



Absolutely. Leica and Leica users are just now shifting towards digital, facing some of the issues other brands have solved years ago already. Their reputation so far is built on (no doubt excellent) film cameras and usage of their lenses combined with analog film.



The digital age, however, brings new challenges to deal with. Subtle differences in contrast or colour balance for example were important attributes of a lens with film, but now they are just the move of a slider away.



On the other hand, there's now the possibility to pixel peep with a Leica, too (not on the M9's ancient display, though), and some surprising results seem to be ahead. Like: if you purchase a fast tele prime, that carries APO in its name (for a price, that would have bought you a Nikon 200/2 VR just a year ago, before Nikon raised the prices) you'd probably expect it to be free of LoCAs. Well, turns out it's not.



I have a feeling there are quite a few sacred cows to kill.



There are some testers out there already who do M lens reviews. However, none of them does technical reviews like we usually do, so we're trying to fill that gap. I'm sure we'll have to face some hefty arguments with the fan boys, though <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[Martin_MM]

Markus:



Thanks for the complex and insightful reply!



No more questions here concerning Leica from my side, just let me make a one more short remark: It´s just pain in the heart to see Leica loosing competitive abilitites, so frustrating... Even now - although the M9 is nice product for sure - it is evident that Leica is several years behind the competition... and I think the M9 is terribly overpriced, no matter how great the famous Leica label sounds and means. I hope so much they would be able to reach the balanced top quality of their bodies they built their reputation on (together with the lenses, of course).



Last question if you don´t mind - what equipment are you personally using? Is it the Leica with Heliar only...? :-)

[mst]

Well, the M9 fills a niche that has been empty so far. It's technically not on par with the big players, like in the high ISO area (however, personally I often miss a usable low ISO setting like 50 or even 25 more). It has some unique selling points, though, like the lack of an antialiasing filter. However, it's probably not a big deal for the large camera makers to adopt that strategy.



[quote name='Martin_MM' date='15 June 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1276601157' post='536']

Last question if you don´t mind - what equipment are you personally using? Is it the Leica with Heliar only...? :-)

[/quote]



I used to be a Nikon only guy (and a Canon guy before the D300), but over the last year have learned to love smaller cameras (we're all getting older ... especially our backs, it seems). So, currently I'm more or less distributing the same amount of usage to each one of three systems. When needed, I still rely on the D3x, especially with long and short glass. The M9 is my sort of everyday camera, at least in the sense that it usually have it with me most of the time (which doesn't necessarily mean I use it every day). And as another rather portable system, there's a G1, which initially was "only" my wife's camera, but which I learned to appreciate as a nice addition to the M system. It doesn't take away much additional space, but gives functionality and range that the M9 lacks by default (think about AF, wide angle, macro and tele range).



However, note that I switch equipment quite often, so things might look different in a year from now on. I'm sure I will stick with the D3x and M9 (I have to for reviews, anyway), but there's a new Nikon DX test camera on the horizon and that might make me reconsider the G1.



I haven't decided yet which lenses to use on the M9. I'm still exploring and learning the system, but I think I might end with something like 35/50/90. Maybe 28 or 75 (in addition or instead of soemthing else). Time (and the reviews) will tell <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />



-- Markus