Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sony E 10-24mm f/4 OSS review delayed once more
#1
The 2nd sample is now MASSIVELY decentered.

Honestly, I'm close to giving up NEX testing now. The Sony QC is nothing short of pathetic.

 

Klaus

#2
.... well i know another famous company that appeared to be going for gold in this years nex7 "interesting gear" awards ... but maybe sony doesn't like to lose such a prestigious award to the riff-raff

#3
It's really a shame we're plagued with this problem,couplets being the major problem I suppose and any sort of zoom is risky.My experiences certainly been painful. Just as a time scale reference,I bought S/H from ebay last week an old "revuenon" 28mm 2.8,all metal,all controls silky, "perfectly centered"   20 odd years old! Good manual lens actually.  Maybe the designs have improved,but they don't make them like they used to!

Dave's clichés
#4
I'm sorry to say it again but I convinced that the real QC mess started with the optical image stabilizers. Especially the combination with wide angles is nothing short of terrible in terms of consistency in my opinion.

Call me conservative but I can only strongly recommend to stay away from IS lenses that are shorter than 35mm - across all brands that is. IS is a "controlled" decentering of a loosely mounted lens element or group. This is doomed to be a hot spot of failures.

 

The 16-50 OSS is here as well as the moment. I wouldn't sign this with blood yet. However, I did a series of sample images with OSS off and on. Subjectively I'd say that the OSS-off versions are sharper at the borders with less sharpness variations on the sides. 

 

Klaus

#5
That's a pretty big statement. Markus is hereby summoned to this thread to report his experience with the Nikkor 16-35/4 VR (there isn't any mention of centering issues in his report though). Smile I also remember that the 24-70L was pretty horrible in this regard without any stabilizer, right Klaus? Smile

#6
   When IS lenses started to appear I wondered about IS decentering as well as a drop in resolution,also I noticed that  IS versions the Tamron 17-50 were a stop behind over the non IS versions and others. But since then I've heard no more and assumed that over the course of time these problems had been overcome,evidently not. This now leaves us with three sources of lens problems,AF and two sources of decentering.

      One recent cause of yet another problem from IS on the Nikon forum( I think it's on the 24-70),at long exposures of several minutes a red stripe is left on the image even when the photo is taken in complete darkness,it turns out that it is caused by an IR LED used in the IS system.

Dave's clichés
#7
There is IMHO no pressing need for image stabilization with a 10-24mm lens anyways.

#8
For Sony NEX is for photography and video, so IS has it arguments for everry lens. Actually my impression is that sony has at production start a QA problem. Many lenses improved over time.

#9
Quote:For Sony NEX is for photography and video, so IS has it arguments for everry lens. Actually my impression is that sony has at production start a QA problem. Many lenses improved over time.
I am not at all interested in video, I want good lenses for taking stills. Besides how good is an argument if in reality one ends up with heavily decentered lenses?
#10
Quote:I am not at all interested in video, I want good lenses for taking stills. Besides how good is an argument if in reality one ends up with heavily decentered lenses?
 

Do you believe that Sony is designing a camera exclusively for you? Actually I don't wide angle lens, why the **** Sony is making them at all. ;-)
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)