07-14-2015, 05:45 AM
I understood, even the worst Otus copy to be better than the best Canon 50/1.8 STM, no problem with that. But given most if not all manufacturers use the MTF method for testing, I expected the "best" lens not necessarily best manufactured, but tested the hardest way and with tightest tolerances.
Sure, quality control never produces quality - it's just making sure, that the variation doesn't go below a "more complaints than profit" point.
It's very easy, @AiryDiscus and @dave9to5: If Zeiss calls the highest price ever for a 55/1.4 it has to be the best, from copy to copy. Everywhere. Does a customer really needs to do a centering or MTF test by himself to be sure he/she got a good copy?
Plus, being the failure copies pre-screened: Doesn't this make the whole testing results questionable? As lensrentals doesn't stock a lot of expensive lenses but quite a number of cheaper ones. So, with pre-selection coming into play, we're looking here at the "avant-garde" of their production but not to the "out-in-the-wild" situation.
So, how much more possible would it be to get a lousy copy?
Thanks for the samples, @AiryDiscus
Sure, quality control never produces quality - it's just making sure, that the variation doesn't go below a "more complaints than profit" point.
It's very easy, @AiryDiscus and @dave9to5: If Zeiss calls the highest price ever for a 55/1.4 it has to be the best, from copy to copy. Everywhere. Does a customer really needs to do a centering or MTF test by himself to be sure he/she got a good copy?
Plus, being the failure copies pre-screened: Doesn't this make the whole testing results questionable? As lensrentals doesn't stock a lot of expensive lenses but quite a number of cheaper ones. So, with pre-selection coming into play, we're looking here at the "avant-garde" of their production but not to the "out-in-the-wild" situation.
So, how much more possible would it be to get a lousy copy?
Thanks for the samples, @AiryDiscus