Do you "test" your lens after purchase?

Fernando wrote in post #16472665
If all I shoot doesn't bring it into play then I don't care. Period.

I have a Sigma 30 that I love. It's never let me down in real world use. On a lark I decided to "test" it in the way that a lot of the folks on this forum suggest.

It failed miserably.

So I put it on my camera and kept on shooting and getting the great results I had been getting all along.

Sorry, but if its badly decentered you are certainly not getting the same results you would with a good copy, despite the fact it doesn't bother you. I shoot mostly landscapes and in museums indoors with lower light and I could easily see the effects of off centered focus on almost every shot. That is the reason I learned about the test in the first place. You paid your money, why be satisfied with a less than good copy?

Fernando wrote in post #16472665
If all I shoot doesn't bring it into play then I don't care. Period.

I have a Sigma 30 that I love. It's never let me down in real world use. On a lark I decided to "test" it in the way that a lot of the folks on this forum suggest.

It failed miserably.

So I put it on my camera and kept on shooting and getting the great results I had been getting all along.

and this is a legitimate viewpoint as well, which i can also respect. but in such a case, you have to be okay with knowing that you paid $$$ for a technically defective lens.

here is an example of perhaps overdoing the testing (and i started this thread, so i am the guilty one):

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1343036

in this case, we are talking about 2 lenses that are probably both at least of average performance in copy variance, but more likely the 24-70 is above average and the 70-200 is exemplary.

here, neither lens is defective. so i would say that the whole thing was just a grand waste of my time and caused undue anxiousness.

so that's one extreme supporting your view.

but here's a question for you then: what if you try to sell that lens later? are you going to note that it "failed miserably?" if you do, surely you have to take a loss in resale value. heck, most people probably wouldn't even buy it at all if that's what you said. would it not have been better to have known the problem while during the return period and got one without problems?

Related thread -- I though this posters "new lens test" test was amusing (I've never done that):
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1343986

mwsilver wrote in post #16472722
Sorry, but if its badly decentered you are certainly not getting the same results you would with a good copy, despite the fact it doesn't bother you. I shoot mostly landscapes and in museums indoors with lower light and I could easily see the effects of off centered focus on almost every shot. That is the reason I learned about the test in the first place. You paid your money, why be satisfied with a less than good copy?

Mine isn't de-centered. It slightly front focusses. Unless I'm at 1.4 at MFD it doesn't come into play. Even if it were de-centered it doesn't affect my photography.

I don't have a less than good copy. I have a very good copy with which to take photos. I can't speak for the uber-testers or measurebaters here but the ones I know in person are gear whores who are more interested in telling everyone they have a "perfect" 50L after checking 5 copies...and then never shooting it at anything but test charts.

Xyclopx wrote in post #16472738
and this is a legitimate viewpoint as well, which i can also respect. but in such a case, you have to be okay with knowing that you paid $$$ for a technically defective lens.

but here's a question for you then: what if you try to sell that lens later? are you going to note that it "failed miserably?" if you do, surely you have to take a loss in resale value. heck, most people probably wouldn't even buy it at all if that's what you said. would it not have been better to have known the problem while during the return period and got one without problems?

By the over-testers definition ALL lenses are defective. A good friend of mine is a constant tester. He is never happy with his gear. He's also a less than stellar photographer. Photoshop genius however.

If I sell my 30/1.4 (unlikely, I don't generally play the buy, sell, never shoot game) I will post images I've taken with it. Only the gear collectors, as opposed to photographers, will care that I ever said it didn't test well.

The bigger price hit would be when all the retailers closed it out at $275

I do believe you got yourself into an endless loop searching for the perfect lens, but I can understand that when shopping at your price point.

I don't think you should settle though with a flawed lens, especially when you pay sometimes in excess of $2,000 for them.

I have seen plenty of variation of the same type of lenses... From zooms with one end sharper than the other varying copy to copy, resolution wide open, CA and fringing differences and build quality. While I know I will never get a perfect lens, I don't want a flawed one, either. My biggest peeve is decentered lens elements... I always test this carefully to be sure each corner is close in resolution, along with top/bottom and side/side. It drives me nuts, otherwise... Especially considering Canon repair really can't correct this that well (I have tried many times with three different lenses over the years). They never can correct it, even with obvious examples sent with the lens. This includes the 24-70 II, 17-40 and 70-200 II. None got any better.

In response to Fernando:

I have the following equipment: 7D, 1D mkIIn, Canon lenses 17-40, 70-200 f2.8 IS I, and 300 f4IS. In any combination, they all work great.

Just bought the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Sharpness is great on the 7D but terrible on the 1D.

I bought it specifically to use with the 1D and also bought it because it is rated to be much sharper at f2.8 than the previous version.

So my only options are to exchange it or have it re-calibrated by Canon.

My first option is to get a replacement. If that does not work, I will send the camera and lens to Canon.

I do not demand perfection, just usability.

Fernando wrote in post #16476463
I can't speak for the uber-testers or measurebaters here but the ones I know in person are gear whores who are more interested in telling everyone they have a "perfect" 50L after checking 5 copies...and then never shooting it at anything but test charts.

I know this all too well since I was probably one of those types many years ago. I had all my gear stolen right from my house! and never thought I could buy any of it back so I was out of the hobby for years. ...well, time passes and here I am again, fortunate enough to be able to afford to fix my mistakes. the gear lust is somewhat gone, and I only buy lenses now that I know I can use, and I actually have a nice portfolio now. there is definitely some part of gear-mania in this testing stuff which I try to keep at a minimum.

Fernando wrote in post #16476463
Mine isn't de-centered. It slightly front focusses. Unless I'm at 1.4 at MFD it doesn't come into play. Even if it were de-centered it doesn't affect my photography.

I don't have a less than good copy. I have a very good copy with which to take photos. I can't speak for the uber-testers or measurebaters here but the ones I know in person are gear whores who are more interested in telling everyone they have a "perfect" 50L after checking 5 copies...and then never shooting it at anything but test charts.

If you're happy with your lens despite the front focusing that's fine with me. In my case, I noticed the obvious decentering with my copy in real world use over several days. I then confirmed it with the LensRental test and sent it back to B&H for a new copy. The second copy slightly back focused which I also noticed immediately on many shots without testing it. However I did eventually test it to confirm what I was seeing and took it and my camera to Sigma's facility on Long Island to have it adjusted. Now all is well. For me this is not about having a textbook copy that measures perfectly, its about having a copy without obvious problems that affect my results. Of course no lens is perfect, but I at least want any lens I keep to be as close to spec as reasonably possible. I never shoot brick walls and don't resort to test charts unless I notice something amiss. But after my experience, going forward I will test new lenses on arrival. It only takes a few minutes and might save time and frustration.