1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

'Good Copy-Bad Copy'

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by Pete Delaney, Jun 11, 2005.

  1. Pete Delaney

    Pete Delaney
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Ratings:
    +598
    You can't get away from this subject, call it 'lens envy' call it what you like but there are always arguments regarding which is the better lens....and the classic rebuttle seems to be something like.....'oh I have a good copy of that lens and it's much better than your expensive one' or .....'this lens should be much better than that lens, it must be a bad copy'

    I can't believe there could be such discrepency in quality control at the manufacturers, it would make buying a lens a complete lottery and the amount of returns or exchanges would be huge! Are we getting suckered in by owners opinions or is there more to this 'Good/Bad Copy' debate????

    ......ok having put a light to the blue touch paper I shall retire to a safe distance and see if this goes off or if it's a dud. :devil:
     
  2. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    I've maybe been through 10 lenses of various manufacturers and only had, as far as I know, one problem and I simply returned the lens. I suspect that QA is OK but that there are some very minor variations across lenses within the specifications. I doubt if these are significant and reported issues are more likely to be due to 'user error' or lack of experience. I have no proof of that tho'.

    Some lenses are held up by some almost as miracles and so expectations are very high. A classic is the Tamron 28-75. I have this lens and it is a good one, but it is still a fairly cheap lens. If I'd have believed the hype then maybe I would have returned it by now. I know I can get some great shots when I use it right and I have had some lousy one too, esp. early on. It's easier to buy a lens than learn how to use it.

    My Tokina 20-35mm f2.8 is outstanding, but luckily not flavour of the month and so I only have my own shots to judge its abilities. If it had been a 70-200mm f4 Canon, for example, then lots of people would have views on it and MAYBE I'd be influenced by that. The more popular a lens the more sample shots and views there are and the more SOME people need to justify their poor results by saying their lens has issue!
     
  3. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    i think its more likely user error! Most of the shots i take with my sigma are blurred, but i know that is cos i dont know how to use the camera properly...
     
  4. martynk

    martynk
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ken Rockwell (I know he's controversial) reckons there can be quite a bit of difference between individual lenses and suggests examining as many as possible in the store and picking the "best" one. Can't see any harm in that advice, assuming you live near a well stocked dealer.
     
  5. NaimBoy

    NaimBoy
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    98
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sorry folks - only found this thread after posting something similar here

    I REALLY wanted to believe that it was me.... that all this good/bad stuff is just 'lens envy'.... that QA was still something that people understood.....

    But having been on the receiving end of it I can only conclude that Ken Rockwell is indeed correct.

    Cheers,
    Mark
     
  6. Pete Delaney

    Pete Delaney
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Ratings:
    +598
  7. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Right now i'm thinking i made a mistake returning my 16-35. There is always going to be a bad copy out there, but i've read guys going through 6 lenses, by that point you have to ask the question has that person got something to do with it. Bei it expectations way too high, or user error. I think my reason for return might have been a bit of both and i seriously doubt that it had anything to do with the lens. I also never gave it the test it deserved


    I sent some photos at full res of to john last night, as my problem was that i thought the photos were soft at 2.8 which is the reason for the high cost of the lens. But from johns reply looks like i was to hasty.

    Anyway, here's a shot taken in door poor light (very) at 2.8. John kindly used usm, i can see it's sharper then the original, but the color and detail are all the lens
     

    Attached Files:

  8. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    And the original
     

    Attached Files:

  9. tomson

    tomson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    1,918
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Berk'amsted
    Ratings:
    +187
    ...as you no doubt know Sean that sort of shot @ 2.8 is never going to be indicative of what a lens can do - so little of the shot will actually be infocus.
     
  10. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    You're right tom, that it got what it got in that light is one of the reasons why i bought it. Going to have to have another look i think
     
  11. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    Tomson is spot on ... the colour/contrast are up to the mark and you'd expect to USM most of the time. Given the light I'd be happy. I have a standard application of USM in Photoshop CS and it does my decent images a treat every time. Rare I have to change settings.
     
  12. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Diane was not the subject i might had, the room was. Can't fault it at all.


    Of to Edinburgh Friday and i'm going to need a wide angle. Think i'll have to buy another one
     
  13. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    Possibly one of the only sensible things Ken Rockwell has ever said! Although perhaps going to your local Jessops and wanting to try out EVERY single copy of a lens, then mentioning you'd like a price match might slightly test their patience......
     
  14. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    Nah, that's not wide, you want a proper wide angle for your camera mate! Think Canon 10-22, or the new Sigma 10-20!! Absolutely epic :thumbsup:
     
  15. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    You know what ... I only try to buy SH when I can because I can always ask for sample shots. If they can't produce any you know there is probably a problem. Anyone with a quality lens can send a 100% crop at least, preferably a full shot straight from the camera. Held me in good stead thus far and obviously saved bags of cash! All mine are sharp as a .... erm very sharp thing! I guess if I did buy new and an expensive lens I would take my camera and laptop in the shop and try the lens there and then. I wouldn't do the 'try them all' routine. As long as the lens was sharp and contrasty and dynamic I would be happy. 95% is good enough ...
     
  16. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    I should have said widish sean

    Nah Sean, i want no less then 2.8 and the sigma's F4. The 10-22 is not too bad at 3.5 but i don't want efs and the aperture is not constant untill F4.5
     
  17. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    Fair enough mate, still reckon 16x1.6 just isn't wide enough :p But no doubt you returned a great lens! Personally i'm just jealous, i'd never dream of spending that much on that lens, but then again, it's not really in my "fave" focal length ranges. Having said that, going long (for motorsport) and wide (for fun landscapes) has never looked more expensive in the prime range! (Which is why i'm probably going to buy a Sigma 12-24 to tide me over until i win the lottery and can buy a Canon 4/5/600mm prime)

    A little bit off topic, how are you getting on with your 100-300 CondyK?
     
  18. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Few primes i'd like is the 14L 35L the 135L. Would also like the 70-200 2.8 IS
     
  19. NaimBoy

    NaimBoy
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    98
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm with Tomson on this one...

    Seany - I'd certainly try another one - the results after applying USM looked pretty good to me under the circumstances
     
  20. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    Saving up for the 70-200 as we speak. Unfortunately, we could be here a few months unless my DJ work picks up...... :thumbsdow
     
  21. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    What typs of music do you play Sean, House?
     
  22. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    PIcking up this old thread and totally off topic - No, the most disgusting and tasteless music around at the moment, R&B and Hiphop! I am having difficulty making people realise that the R&B and HipHop stuff around at the moment is rubbish compared to the old stuff!

    But almost moving back on topic, managed to get my hands on one of these 12-24 beasties today, and man is it wide! Really looking forward to september when i head to Vegas and can really test out this monster at the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam and the Strip etc! From initial impressions, lens focus is even across the lens (the main complaint is that copies are OOF on the left/right hand sides un-evenly) and pretty sharp - I'm a happy bunny! Now deciding whether to buy one of these crazy Russian tilt-shift lenses from Kievcamera.com - I think i like the idea having one just because they're called "Super Rotator" :)
     
  23. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Look forward to some examples Sean:)
     
  24. dejongj

    dejongj
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    28,214
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Beautiful South
    Ratings:
    +4,567
    I'm surprised you even asked the question...Quality control is lacking at any other manufacturing or service or whatever supply...So why not with lenses?

    Great example last week...Take a look at NASA...Take a look at all the car recalls...And then consider all those consumer who have nothing to test their lens against and perhaps think it looks great....

    Ignorance is bliss I think....
     

Share This Page

Loading...