Lens settling in period

[blue_max]

Having owned three lenses and tried another three, what are people's experience of the 'settling in' period for the lenses. Almost every lens I try doesn't go well initially, but comes good in the end.

I think it is a wake up call for anybody moving up to dslr that there is a settling in period where the operator has to get used to the equipment. The expectation is that buying an expensive lens will yield great results from the off.

The harmony between quality equipment and talent is a fine balance. Too much talent will outperform the equipment (allegedly!). Too good equipment will leave the user in their wake and demonstrate their weakness.

Does this happen to seasoned pros as well I wonder?

Graham

[Simon Spiers]

Why a lens should need a settling in period is beyond me:cry:
If it was a loudspeaker or car engine i would see the point.
What will settle in a lens ,except dust:rolleyes:

[ed2day]

I think he's talking more about a learning curve with a new lens.

[Skip Souza]

It takes a little time for the lens to properly train the photographer, hehehehe ;-)

[blue_max]

Yes, waffled a bit, sorry. To sum up, I just seem to see a lot of people on forums disappointed with their lenses initially. I thought it might be interesting to hear people's experiences of being unhappy and then getting to grips with a lens and it's nuances and finding out it was them all along. It might be useful to newcomers (and us all!). Sometimes the best tips are picked up that way, the ones that somehow never seem appropriate to mention.

Not a direct question, more a discussion.

Graham

[condyk]

I got two lenses on Monday a Sigma 80-400 OS and a Tamron 28-75. The Tamron took some very nice shots right away and the Sigma after 100+ efforts still couldn't focus correctly on a subject. It focused in front of the focus point.

In this case the Sigma went back next day. No learning curve needed. It was just bad luck. To keep the lens for several days, or a couple of weeks if I was shor tof time, hoping to eventually allow it to train me in how to handle it seems a bit daft. I think I would have struggled to get my refund!

I know what you're saying, but if a camera is in full auto mode and you're shooting in decent light at a static object you'd at least expect a decent result. A bit of fine tuning may occur as you get more used to its characteristics, sure, but if it's just producing rubbish then you're better off sending it back I reckon.

[blue_max]

Hi Dave,

I did some rudimentary tests on my two lenses (at the time) and in one or two shots, I could manually focus better (and some the other way round). They were not repeatable and certainly not scientific. If the manufacturer could not manage better than the amount of lenses that seem to be accepted first time here, then no wonder lenses are so expensive. Or is it the camera, or a bit of both, or just the distance/light/object combination.

I wonder if one instincively allows for the possibility of an error and particularly checks or focusses on a point that may be more reliable, without even realising it.

Perhaps the fact that the lenses are actually so good now that even a little softness becomea very obvious. And large telephotos must be the worst of all for getting right.

I for one feel very uncertain about my equipment now. Almost paranoid. Every piece of my equipment is second hand, but I would feel the same if I bought new now.

It is getting a little like hi-fi buffs who listen to the sound and not to the music. People either seem exstatic of highly disappointed. I do feel that we need to hear more of the folks that overcome what at first seemed a dud and found a jewel – to give us all hope.

I live in hope.

Graham