Posts: 7,949
Threads: 1,829
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Soft on the upper left side ?
Posts: 155
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
1
06-22-2014, 08:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2014, 09:11 AM by goran h.)
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.
Göran
Posts: 7,949
Threads: 1,829
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Maybe stick to Olympus ... not perfect but the best of the mirrorless gang IMHO.
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.
Posts: 155
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
1
06-27-2014, 06:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2014, 06:30 PM by goran h.)
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 cameralabs.com
Would be nice to see a review here in the near future.
Göran
Posts: 7,949
Threads: 1,829
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
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.
