Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What do you think about this?

Soft on the upper left side ?

Yes, very soft (but it is not so easy to see that on this downsized image).

It is the Pana-Leica 15/1.7.

I have bought 3 decentred Pana lenses (new) the two last years - 20/1.7 (just a little bit soft in one corner), 45-150 severe decentring,

and this one (severe decentring).

I sent them (the first two) back and had to wait almost two months to get them "repaired" (but I got new samples).

Now I have to send this one back and wait two months again -really tired of this.

It is like a joke - they use the Leica brand and have no QC.



Maybe stick to Olympus ... not perfect but the best of the mirrorless gang IMHO.

Sorry to know this.

Quote:Maybe stick to Olympus ... not perfect but the best of the mirrorless gang IMHO.

Fujifilm? Tongue
Quote:Fujifilm? Tongue

Don't ask Klaus about centering quality of Fuji lenses. He might get a fit Wink

I haven't seen many posts from you for a while (nice to see you back). Klaus discussed a long line of centering issues with Fuji lenses.

Having read a lot of threads; it seems like olympus (while far from perfect) wins the quality department for lenses (there has been a bit of sample variation in the 12mm lens; but generally the comments on the other lenses 12-40; 75; ... have been fairly positive. Fuji I see lots of complaints (bad motors, decentered, cluth (zoom lenses), ...); while from the complaitns I've seen it seems like Klaus has a higher hit rate for duds; I've been surprise at the number of complaitns I've seen with 55-200 and 18-55 dying after a year (motor issues). This doesn't mean there are a huger number of deaths but conversely these are not being used by photo journalists or similar where they get daily hard knocks.


Mind you all companies have lenses that fail or duds; so I'm mostly just mentioning those things that seem like a pattern.

Just played a little with the 15/1.7. before I returned it (for "repair"). Seems to be a real good lens - great contrast, nice bokeh, pretty good at f2 and sharp from f4 and of course very good BQ. Small and good - the smaller the better! (or what do you think Klaus?) 


There is also a rewiew and comparation with Oly 17/1.8 at


Would be nice to see a review here in the near future.



Well, the it turns out that the IS in the recently reviewed Canon 16-35mm f/4 USM L IS is defective.

Thus ... all sucks really.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)