+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Sony (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: SEL1670Z kaputt (/showthread.php?tid=5500)
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - davidmanze - 06-17-2023
(06-17-2023, 09:20 AM)stoppingdown Wrote: So it looks like it will be a long story. There are huge improvements at 70mm, good improvements at 50mm, 35mm is so-so; 24mm is basically unchanged.
In the next days I'll be out for a trip, then I'll resend the lens back to the lab.
I see above suggestions to ask for a new lens... But the lens was out of warranty, so I think the only point I can stress is to ask for it to be really fixed (the repair is under warranty of course) — or eventually a refund.
Hmm ...... you said that 35mm was so so and that 24mm was unchanged ..... does that mean not so good? .... maybe they have spent time trying to find decent alignment by lens element shimming/tilting and have been unable to make corrections across the focal range .....
They're at least having a go which I suppose is something ......
btw,
Actually I did say ask for "another lens", not a new one .... given that the lens was OK optically when you sent it in for the repair issue you had with it, puts the onus on Sony because the guarantee is on the repair not the lens! .... Of course a refund would be ideal given it's not a great lens anyway.
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 07-18-2023
End of story, the repair lab says that the performance at 24mm is “within the specifications”. So I'm now going to buy a replacement lens: either the Sigma 18-50 or the Tamron 17-70. I'm going to open a new thread in order to hear your opinions.
Here: https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthread.php?tid=5565
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - Klaus - 07-18-2023
"Within specifications" - a classic across all manufacturers ... (except Leica)
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - Rover - 07-18-2023
That lens is supposed to be piss poor at 70mm, not 24mm...
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 07-18-2023
Indeed it's a random thing, it depends on the copy. Mine was fine at 70mm and still ok after the lab “retouch”; clearly much better than the one reviewed by Klaus, even though he had to send back the first copies it received. I think it's one “hit” in the unreliable QA for optic products ever.
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 08-04-2023
Thing are getting more and more absurd. I've sent the lens to MPB.com, which evaluates it used at around 250€. I was expecting two outcomes: either they consider the lens good enough, and at least I get some money back from this story; or they evaluate the lens not good enough to be marketed, and at this point I'd forward the bad evaluation to the Sony lab, just to let them know that a lens "within the specs" is too bad to be sold.
Surprise: MPB.com says that the lens can't be sold because it has a fungus.
I'll investigate next Monday.
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 08-08-2023
I asked MPB to provide some evidence about the fungus, so I can complain with the Sony lab. They answered that indeed it's not a fungus, but dust, fibers, and light moisture. No evidence provided, though. I think it's quite clear they don't want to buy the lens, but why not just telling me it has optical problems?
I could write a book about this lens. :-) It seems to be doomed.
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 08-18-2023
Plot twist in the end: MPB re-checked the lens and decided it was ok. So I sold it indeed. And I think this is definitely the last step of my history of SEL1670Z.
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - Klaus - 08-18-2023
That's what you hope ;-)
RE: SEL1670Z kaputt - stoppingdown - 08-30-2023
LOL...