Cool to read. I'll stay away from them as I don't want to have a lens without EXIF. But for those caring less about that, they have some interesting items in their portfolio.
Quote:It's funny that their comment is based on the 55-200mm. This was the only zoom lens with a complete mechanical breakdown that I've ever experienced (jammed zoom ring). The 16-50mm felt like the 55-200mm prior of the jamming ( zooming produced a click noise in the middle range ).
The 18-135mm has no proper zoom stop at 135mm (two samples).
A higher decentering ratio compared to other manufacturers.
There's also the famous rattling when "shaking" a Fujinon (some of them) - although you may argue that those lenses could have a 2nd use for making music or something ... chakka ....
As mentioned no repairs - just exchanges - what does that tell me ?
I, for one, always start praying when buying a Fujinon (also Tamron, Pentax - I gave up with Tokina).
But, other than that the Fujis were a 100%? B)
I wouldn't expect these aluminum lenses to be anything but reliable, there's not much going on in them, take away the AF motor and any OS, here, they have even eliminated auto diaphragm mechanisms.
Lens dropping on the floor is a statistical study, you need to drop a hundred lenses to get any real insight into a lens's resistance to shock.
In Barcelona I had someone opened my lens bag trying to steal my camera (Samsung GX10/ Pentax K10) the camera with lens attached fell on to concrete pavement....it survived with nothing other than a scratch on the lens-hood. Others drop their camera 1/2 meter onto a soft carpet and have to have both the body and the lens rebuilt.
Quote: But, other than that the Fujis were a 100%? B)
Oh, I love the Fujis. Probably more than I hate them ;-)
Quote: I wouldn't expect these aluminum lenses to be anything but reliable, there's not much going on in them, take away the AF motor and any OS, here, they have even eliminated auto diaphragm mechanisms.
Lens dropping on the floor is a statistical study, you need to drop a hundred lenses to get any real insight into a lens's resistance to shock.
In Barcelona I had someone opened my lens bag trying to steal my camera (Samsung GX10/ Pentax K10) the camera with lens attached fell on to concrete pavement....it survived with nothing other than a scratch on the lens-hood. Others drop their camera 1/2 meter onto a soft carpet and have to have both the body and the lens rebuilt.
Agreed. The drop scenario isn't a real concern in my opinion.
A bigger concern is the deterioration over time (which is why I'm not a fan of lens IS).
Quote:
A dent in the filter thread - that was all and it was working just as before the falling.
Excuse me JoJu but!........working just as before the "fall"!
I thought, fall = autumn? Anyway, base line is, some of the Nikkor's are still build like, hmm maybe not tanks, but submarines. ^_^ It's good to keep that in mind when comparing Nikkor against Sigma.
02-22-2017, 03:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2017, 03:21 PM by thxbb12.)
Quote:It's funny that their comment is based on the 55-200mm. This was the only zoom lens with a complete mechanical breakdown that I've ever experienced (jammed zoom ring). The 16-50mm felt like the 55-200mm prior of the jamming ( zooming produced a click noise in the middle range ).
The 18-135mm has no proper zoom stop at 135mm (two samples).
A higher decentering ratio compared to other manufacturers.
There's also the famous rattling when "shaking" a Fujinon (some of them) - although you may argue that those lenses could have a 2nd use for making music or something ... chakka ....
As mentioned no repairs - just exchanges - what does that tell me ?
I, for one, always start praying when buying a Fujinon (also Tamron, Pentax - I gave up with Tokina).
Re: 55-200: Maybe you were very unlucky? I wish lensrentals would publish some statistics by manufacturers in terms of lens reliability since they have the data to do it. It's very difficult to gauge the quality of a maker objectively with only few anecdotal stories from users here and there.
Plus, it might vary quite a bit depending on the class of lens, lenses themselves and usage patterns.
As far as centering quality goes, lensrentals (again) provided graphs showing the performance of many samples of the same lens. Of course, they only do this for Canon (and maybe Nikon) and only for very specific lens models. Again, it's difficult to gauge how good/bad a manufacturer is without any solid evidence.
As far as customer service goes, it's an entirely different matter. A lens can be good and customer service might sucks big time. Conversely a lens can be crap, but customer service is great.
They are better off not to publish them.  Too many people would conclude too weird things out of it. There are a lot of variables in statistics. Roger often says, people don't care much about rented stuff (compared to owned stuff), and as the stuff basically is covered by insurance, there's some truth in it.
Then certain lenses or bodies are high in demand, but low in numbers in terms of being available to rent. The more often a lens goes out, the higher the possibility of a failure.
Some devices and lenses they maintain and repair themselves, others go to service stations of manufacturers - if they ask for a lot of money, the possible repair becomes a total loss or goes to spare-parts stock. I think we can agree that repair is a good thing, toal loss because of damage generally a bad thing. But here are economical aspects changing the statistics.
Also, you know how easy we come to "fixed opinions" like metal = superb build quality", "goldring lenses of manufacturer X are build like tanks" and so on - but manufacturers constantly try to reduce costs and don't hesitate to do so at the cost of quality. A statistic only shows history - it doesn't promise the future of an item I plan to buy.
And with a look at lensrentals: Their statistic would show, how tough their stocked material is, how much bad treatment it can stand. Without this heavy duty use, lots of items will last longer than I have it in posession.
A good customer service will never make a bad lens good, but a bad one can execute lousy repair jobs - if a lens has to go to repair, so we're coming back to lenses which are made to never come back to the factory to repair.
Quote:Re: 55-200: Maybe you were very unlucky? I wish lensrentals would publish some statistics by manufacturers in terms of lens reliability since they have the data to do it. It's very difficult to gauge the quality of a maker objectively with only few anecdotal stories from users here and there.
Plus, it might vary quite a bit depending on the class of lens, lenses themselves and usage patterns.
As far as centering quality goes, lensrentals (again) provided graphs showing the performance of many samples of the same lens. Of course, they only do this for Canon (and maybe Nikon) and only for very specific lens models. Again, it's difficult to gauge how good/bad a manufacturer is without any solid evidence.
As far as customer service goes, it's an entirely different matter. A lens can be good and customer service might sucks big time. Conversely a lens can be crap, but customer service is great.
Customer service unfortunately doesn't depend of the brand but of the dealer, sigma service is excellent everywhere but here, canon service used to be great, now as the expert repairs guy at Canon has started his own business nobody wants to repair at Canon unless it is free under warranty and even then if problem persists lenses are taken to the expert guy who seems to be doing pretty well
|
