Beware of warped clipboards, when shooting newsprint to test lenses.

[cactusclay]

:) :) :) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
;)

[Tom W]

Beware of bad humor when trying to help someone figure out why only they find all the bad lenses. :cool:

[cactusclay]

Tom, I wasn't looking for help, I was just sharing my experience and if you think that I'm the only one that finds bad ones,-which isn't the case- maybe I'm the only one looking, that is why I started another thread to get other people to try out some lenses. To be quite honest I have a sneeking suspicion there are far more poorly made lenses out there than we are aware of, but if people continue to say that the naked king is wearing clothes, then that's what most people will believe. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in looking at the kings arse, I would much rather have a sharp lens. Thanks for trying to help me out though Tom,your sincere gesture is greatly appreciated.

[Tom W]

You've found way more bad lenses than any statistical analysis would suggest exist. I've found 3 out of the 15 or so lenses I've owned or still own. And 2 of those were bought used. That gives me reason to try and find why yours are bad while most of us users are content with our equipment.

Nothing wrong with going out and testing lenses, if you have a place where that can be done. Otherwise, you buy them, try them, and return them if they are no good. I've done that once with a Tokina lens. What I proposed in the other thread and will again propose here is that we develop a standardized method of testing that can be done quickly and will measure as many aspects of a lens'es behavior as possible. Low-light - sunlight. Flare. Contrast. Sharpness. Various apertures and focal lengths. Barrel distortion. All standardized so that anybody can test a lens with the same criteria.

The phone book page idea is actually a good start. I've used newspapers and brick walls a few times myself. But the clipboard is a bit small for wide-angle lens testing. What we need to work on is creating a battery of easy tests to evaluate a lens accurately and equally.

[cactusclay]

I'm thinking that people don't check out their lenses too closely. Just to add to your statistic, to make it even more unbelievable. I ordered a 85/1.8 and a 35/2 from B&H a couple of months ago. The 85's focus ring was so loose, that you could see 1/16 of an inch gap between it and the barrell. The 35 was missing a quarter inch square of lens coating on the front element. That was from the same order. What sort of statistics is that. Those type of things really need no testing, it just poor quality control, which is really what I'm questioning.

[Citizensmith]

I'm never going to want a photo of a newsprint in an album, a frame, or otherwise. I'm certainly not going to waste time taking photos of them. I'll use a lens, and if I like it I like it. If I don't I don't. I won't condem a lens from some anal analysis that would never show a difference in everyday photography, and I sell a decent number of my photos.

Do you really have nothing better to photograph than a newspaper pinned to a warped clipboard?

[Redbird_xo]

I'm thinking that people don't check out their lenses too closely. Just to add to your statistic, to make it even more unbelievable. I ordered a 85/1.8 and a 35/2 from B&H a couple of months ago. The 85's focus ring was so loose, that you could see 1/16 of an inch gap between it and the barrell. The 35 was missing a quarter inch square of lens coating on the front element. That was from the same order. What sort of statistics is that. Those type of things really need no testing, it just poor quality control, which is really what I'm questioning.

Your assumption that both the 85mm and 35mm you got from B&H are BRAND NEW from manufacturer is coming dangerously close to being ignorant. Isn't it possible that those 2 lenses had been sent to and returned from customers for a number of times prior to getting to your hands? I think we need to think about the whole logistics thing from items leaving the manufacturer's quality control line to our hands -- plenty of possiblities are in play. Pardon me for my bluntness, I thought you might have missed these small facts.

[Citizensmith]

You've found way more bad lenses than any statistical analysis would suggest exist. I've found 3 out of the 15 or so lenses I've owned or still own. And 2 of those were bought used. That gives me reason to try and find why yours are bad while most of us users are content with our equipment.

Oh, and I've used 13 different lenses from the lowly 35-80 way back when I got into all this to Ls and primes now. Never had one with any obvious mechanical faults, or optical peformance worse than you'd expect.

[cactusclay]

Actually, I agree that lenses that are returned, may in fact be recirculated, yet everytime I ask that question, I'm told that is not the case-twice now, by B&H- Do you believe them? As far as hanging prints of newpapers and telephone books on my wall goes, That's not what I do, nor would I think you would Citizensmith.You are intitled to your ignorance,but don't you think it's rather imature of you to think that everyone wants to share in your ignorance? We are not talking about sample variation in 50 cent banana's. If you want to pay hundreds of dollars, or thousands, for products that are not the precise instruments that their brosures say they are, then go ahead and be the bafoon. As for me, I'll take an intellegent look at what I spend my money on and be damn sure I'm not following in the footsteps of sheep.

[Citizensmith]

No need to bring out insults.

I was stating an opinion that photos of newspapers are a waste of time compared to using the lens in real life. That is not ignorance, particularly as that kind of test will not show up many of the problems a lens may have or perhaps you are too ignorant to be aware of that. If I had a crappy lens I'd return it, I'll just have more fun finding out than photos of a wall. As for the sheep thing, never been much of one either. Probably one of the few people on here who didn't like the 50 1.8.

And lastly, the buffoon comment. You could at least try and spell it right. Buffoon.

[cactusclay]

I confess, I'm a terrible spellar. Yet let me shed a little light on the matter at hand. This whole thing started when I got some bad samples of th 24-70 2.8, which happens to have a macro capability. Now if the image of what your are taking a macro shot of is soft in one place or the other, then what would be the point in spending over a grand on it. Say you wanted to shoot pictures of stamps or ancient text or any other think you could think of that has a flat surface and everytime you did there was that one out of focus shot that you just shined on when you bought the lens, yet now your photo editor is telling you that your images from the ancient Egyptian Tablet, you took pictures of and he paid four thousand dollars for the trip for, are all out of focus in the lower right hand corner. I just pulled that out of my head, but it's possible isn't it. And if only you would have paid a little bit more attention in the first place, then you wouldn't be experiencing all that imbarassment.

[Citizensmith]

then you wouldn't be experiencing all that imbarassment.

Embarrasment? Why am I supposed to be experiencing embarrasment? None of your comments have changed, or even really gone against my comment that real world use is a better test than an artificial test?

For instance in your example of Indiana Jones off to photograph the long lost texts, I to wouldn't want want to mess up the assignment. However, rather than newspaper on wall I'd try a trip to a museum to see how said texts are commonly displayed so I know how my technique will hold up if the text is, for example, held at a 45 degree angle behind a sheet of glass with bad top lighting.

Most of my paid work is out doors. Therefore to me other factors like CA, lens flare and such are as much of an issue as a soft corner. Not to say having a badly focusing lens is excusable, but having one with more flares than Woodstock is also bad and wouldn't show up in a newspaper test.

[Citizensmith]

I'm a terrible spellar.

I'm still undecided if you are being brutally honest or nicely ironic with this statement.

[cactusclay]

Embarassment from being paid to take out of focus shots. I don't know what everyone is defending. All I wanted to do was share that I came across a few samples of soft lenses and give people the heads up when trying out that lens or others and it seems like what I got was some people feeling the need to discredit me and my test and defend their right to not check out their lenses. Personally, I would have just took the info and stowed it away for future reference, rather than try and figure out some way to discredit it.

[Redbird_xo]

Actually, I agree that lenses that are returned, may in fact be recirculated, yet everytime I ask that question, I'm told that is not the case-twice now, by B&H- Do you believe them?

In short, if what you claim about those two lenses are real, then I would leaning towards thinking that the salesperson wasn't telling you the truth.

Well, as much as I hate to generalize things, I would have to say that in general I won't swallowed everything any salespersons tell me. A quick reality check for this particular case is that retailers are not going to send returned items from customers to their local distributors or directly to manufacturers for replacements or credits unless some manufacturing defects are discovered. Conceivably, many lenses that are returned from customers will, naturally, be put back to the pool.

I am sure that you are simply trying to communicate your thoughts here. So am I. I wish you better luck with Canon merchandise in the future. :)

[thomasrhee]

Amen.

I'm never going to want a photo of a newsprint in an album, a frame, or otherwise. I'm certainly not going to waste time taking photos of them. I'll use a lens, and if I like it I like it. If I don't I don't. I won't condem a lens from some anal analysis that would never show a difference in everyday photography, and I sell a decent number of my photos.

Do you really have nothing better to photograph than a newspaper pinned to a warped clipboard?

[pjd83]

but having one with more flares than Woodstock is also bad and wouldn't show up in a newspaper test.

Fantastic!

I love that comment!

:lol:

My flatmate thinks I'm mad, I'm sitting here giggling manically at this!

[Citizensmith]

it seems like what I got was some people feeling the need to discredit me and my test and defend their right to not check out their lenses.

What makes you assume that I and other people not taking photos of newspapers are not testing our lenses. I'll check my lenses outdoors. I'll look for high contrast subjects to check things like CA, A subject with a complicated background to assess the bokeh of the lens and look for back focusing or similar, broad skyscapes to look for vignetting, photos with bright light sources to look for flare, and general scenes to look for corner to corner sharpness. I'll include plenty of focal lengths for zooms, and of course a wide range of appetures.

Several comments were made about possible resale of returned goods. Fry's electronics definitely does this, although most of the time they place a small sticker on the box to let you know it was previously purchased and returned in perfect condition with everything in the box that should be. Of course that doesn't always work, I've bought things from them with missing CDs and a printer with opened and almost empty ink cartridges. If one store does it I'm sure many do.

[Andy_T]

I think your photo editor would (rightfully) whup your ass for photographing ancient egyptian stone tablets at f/2.8 only.

Best regards,
Andy

[cactusclay]

Hey Andy, The lense was soft in the same spot, at every apature and focal lenght, so whup your own ass for failing to pay attention and get all the facts before opening you pie hole.

[Andy_T]

:D

Well, you could always say the stone tablet was broken :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[Citizensmith]

Well, you could always say the stone tablet was broken


Or maybe that the tablet was possessed by an ancient Sumerian spirit which curses any viewer with backfocus issues and some really nasty vignetting. Only does it to Canon camera though as the Sumerians were well known Nik0n addicts.

Hey Andy, The lense was soft in the same spot, at every apature and focal lenght, so whup your own ass for failing to pay attention and get all the facts before opening you pie hole.

Umm, I just read quickly back through the previous posts and I don't see where you mentioned it was soft in the same spot and every appeture and focal length. Either my ass needs a whuppin' for failing to pay attention or you are talking about something that happened outside this thread. I'm not sure we are supposed to read every post you ever made on the off chance they contain a nugget of information pertaining to this one.

As for the pie hole comment. Now I'm hungry. Only had a cup of coffee for breakfast and now I'm thinking about a nice piece of apple pie with a good ol' lump of ice cream melting on top of it. Damn.