05-17-2011, 12:23 PM
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1305632319' post='8405']
Hi Markus and Klaus,
I really appreciate your efforts in trying to come up with a meaningful review. However I am increasingly wondering whether your approach of sending lenses back until you get a good (well above average?) copy is the right approach for Joe Average. Joe might be a bit shy, not fully aware of his consumer rights and be faced with a unhelpful sales guy refusing to exchange the lens. Also if he is a beginner, he might not understand now that his lens is sub-par, but only a year later when he gained some experience. Then it is typically to late to exchange the lens. The problem with these type of issues is, that the lens is not that obviously broken like when the zoom ring is glued into place or the AF gear stripped. This type of thing (decentered optics) can be very hard to argue. I understand that asking for statistical This is most likely spam content on QC is light years beyond what you can deliver on the resource level you have.
For me the bottom line of your review is a severe thumbs down: What ever happens, one just does not buy Sickma. In line with the most famous photozone page from the late 90ies (long discontinued). Klaus knows what I am referring to.
[/quote]
The point is that we don't know the sample variations. We don't reach statistically relevant dimensions. As such it is not possible to withdraw a thumbs up just because of decentered samples. The Canon 24-70 or Zeiss 24-70 are also suckers in terms of QC. Does this mean that Canon and Sony lenses are bad in general ?
If QC was a number one priority we would all shoot Olympus Digital Zuiko ... (4/3, not MFT) ... IMHO.
Hi Markus and Klaus,
I really appreciate your efforts in trying to come up with a meaningful review. However I am increasingly wondering whether your approach of sending lenses back until you get a good (well above average?) copy is the right approach for Joe Average. Joe might be a bit shy, not fully aware of his consumer rights and be faced with a unhelpful sales guy refusing to exchange the lens. Also if he is a beginner, he might not understand now that his lens is sub-par, but only a year later when he gained some experience. Then it is typically to late to exchange the lens. The problem with these type of issues is, that the lens is not that obviously broken like when the zoom ring is glued into place or the AF gear stripped. This type of thing (decentered optics) can be very hard to argue. I understand that asking for statistical This is most likely spam content on QC is light years beyond what you can deliver on the resource level you have.
For me the bottom line of your review is a severe thumbs down: What ever happens, one just does not buy Sickma. In line with the most famous photozone page from the late 90ies (long discontinued). Klaus knows what I am referring to.
[/quote]
The point is that we don't know the sample variations. We don't reach statistically relevant dimensions. As such it is not possible to withdraw a thumbs up just because of decentered samples. The Canon 24-70 or Zeiss 24-70 are also suckers in terms of QC. Does this mean that Canon and Sony lenses are bad in general ?
If QC was a number one priority we would all shoot Olympus Digital Zuiko ... (4/3, not MFT) ... IMHO.