If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course,
started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
... I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. A "copy" generally refers to a unit that copies someone else's design, but usually with poorer materials and construction techniques... "cheap knockoff" is the more colloquial term. My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. It's not hard to understand variations in quality in lenses. Take a good lens, build a copy off the same blueprints, but use substandard glass or even plastic for the elements, work to slightly wider tolerances, use flimsy metals or plastics instead of stronger, more durable metals... you can see all the places quality can start to go downhill. Impure or misaligned lens elements may distort the light; loose-fitting moving components in zoom and focus mechanisms can also bring distortion, or may tend to shift or wobble with even the slightest movement. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance. Ideas on what? Here's a tried and true rule of thumb: you get what you pay for. Looking at two lenses that look and spec identically, the more expensive one will nine times out of ten give you better results. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
... I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. A "copy" generally refers to a unit that copies someone else's design, but usually with poorer materials and construction techniques... "cheap knockoff" is the more colloquial term. My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. It's not hard to understand variations in quality in lenses. Take a good lens, build a copy off the same blueprints, but use substandard glass or even plastic for the elements, work to slightly wider tolerances, use flimsy metals or plastics instead of stronger, more durable metals... you can see all the places quality can start to go downhill. Impure or misaligned lens elements may distort the light; loose-fitting moving components in zoom and focus mechanisms can also bring distortion, or may tend to shift or wobble with even the slightest movement. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance. Ideas on what? Here's a tried and true rule of thumb: you get what you pay for. Looking at two lenses that look and spec identically, the more expensive one will nine times out of ten give you better results. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
A "copy" generally refers to a unit that copies someone else's design, but usually with poorer materials and construction techniques... "cheap knockoff" is the more colloquial term. I did not explain it very well, so it seems. In this case (my post), "copy" means one sample of a production run. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
A "copy" generally refers to a unit that copies someone else's design, but usually with poorer materials and construction techniques... "cheap knockoff" is the more colloquial term. I did not explain it very well, so it seems. In this case (my post), "copy" means one sample of a production run. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
"Charles Schuler" wrote in message ... I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. Yes, there are variations in the quality of lenses. Some people do indeed make better lenses than others, and some have tighter tolerances than others. Nearly all of the really bad ones have gone out of business. As for one manufacturer copying the design of another, that is rare because most of the designs are patented. Anybody can make a Tessar lens because the patents ran out years ago. Jim |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
"Charles Schuler" wrote in message ... I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. Yes, there are variations in the quality of lenses. Some people do indeed make better lenses than others, and some have tighter tolerances than others. Nearly all of the really bad ones have gone out of business. As for one manufacturer copying the design of another, that is rare because most of the designs are patented. Anybody can make a Tessar lens because the patents ran out years ago. Jim |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
Charles Schuler wrote:
I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance. I am not sure of how much of a difference you are reading about between copies (samples) of a specific lens. There are differences, always have been always will. I think you will generally find a wider range of differences with cheaper lenses, More expensive lenses tend to be built to tighter standards. In a given case, a cheap lens may give outstanding optical results, while the next one is poor. In both cases the mechanical parts are almost certainly at best fair in a cheap lens. It reminds me of an inspection I made while working for the government at a soup factory. They had an area where rejected soup was sold. I assumed it was cans with less meat than their quality standards would allow. I was close. They also rejected it when there was too much meat. Why?, I asked. Well it seems if someone gets one can with too much meat, they expect the same from all the cans, so they make sure every can has the same amount. I never saw that in the lesser brands. They seemed to be happy as long as each can had the minimum amount. -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
Charles Schuler wrote:
I returned to photography as a serious hobby around 1996 and, of course, started using the Internet as a resource. To make a long story short, I keep reading about good and bad copies of lenses. I also note that some qualified users have posted information on their websites including pictures and carefully(?) controlled test shots that support the conjecture that there are good and bad copies of lenses. My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance. I am not sure of how much of a difference you are reading about between copies (samples) of a specific lens. There are differences, always have been always will. I think you will generally find a wider range of differences with cheaper lenses, More expensive lenses tend to be built to tighter standards. In a given case, a cheap lens may give outstanding optical results, while the next one is poor. In both cases the mechanical parts are almost certainly at best fair in a cheap lens. It reminds me of an inspection I made while working for the government at a soup factory. They had an area where rejected soup was sold. I assumed it was cans with less meat than their quality standards would allow. I was close. They also rejected it when there was too much meat. Why?, I asked. Well it seems if someone gets one can with too much meat, they expect the same from all the cans, so they make sure every can has the same amount. I never saw that in the lesser brands. They seemed to be happy as long as each can had the minimum amount. -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bad copy of a lens?
"Charles Schuler" writes:
My background is engineering technology, manufacturing, and ISO 9000 and I cannot wrap my head around the wide range of variations that are being reported. I respect the credentials behind many of the sources reporting, and so am left in a quandary. Add to this mess the combination of lenses with various camera bodies, and it gets even worse. Lens design is a balancing act. Take any one single element out of a lens and test it, and you'll find that its performance is awful - bad chromatic and spherical aberration. The simple achromat uses two types of glass with two different dispersion values to create a positive and negative lens pair with the property that: - The unwanted colour dispersion of the positive lens is mostly cancelled by the opposite dispersion of the negative lens, giving exactly the same image for two wavelengths of light, and much less variation in image size and focus with change in wavelength than a simple lens - At the same time, the overall light-bending power of the positive and negative lenses do *not* cancel, leaving a overall positive or negative lens that can do useful work - In the case of a cemented achromat, the rear radius of the front element has to match the front radius of the rear element. That's with just two elements. Modern lenses use 6 or 8 or more elements, and the design process is a matter of varying curvature and thickness and spacing of elements (and sometimes even adding an aspheric surface or two) to get simultaneous correction for multiple aberrations. But it all depends on "subtraction", where nearly equal but opposite errors combine to almost cancel. Sometimes very tiny errors in lens element spacing or alignment can effectively destroy the designed cancellation, and the lens performs badly. If all lenses of a particular design perform badly, it's a bad design. If some perform well and some poorly, it's either a design that requires unachievably tight manufacturing tolerances (not good), or a good design manufactured inconsistently. Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital vs Film - just give in! | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 159 | November 15th 04 04:56 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
swing lens cameras and focussing distance | RolandRB | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | June 21st 04 05:12 AM |
Schneider Componon-S 150mm Lens for Copy Work??? | Dr. Slick | Large Format Photography Equipment | 17 | February 21st 04 09:40 PM |
Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon) | Dr. Slick | Large Format Photography Equipment | 6 | February 18th 04 01:44 PM |