Is Adorama testing lenses before shipping?

I just got two lenses in the mail today. 55-250 stm and sigma 8-16.

I am admittedly a real hard-ass when it comes to lens quality control and have sent back lenses in the past for being decentered.

I first noticed that the rear lens cap was a bit loose on both. Something I have never seen before. Then with some initial testing, it appears both lenses are super bang on for sharpness and centering in the entire zoom range. I can't even find any nitpick fault. Well besides the lens caps nearly falling off in the boxes.

Is Adorama testing these before shipping? If so, sweet! I hate sending back gear.

I'll be buying all my lenses from them if there is testing being done to catch obvious lemons. This seems like too much of a coincidence.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17242130
I just got two lenses in the mail today. 55-250 stm and sigma 8-16.

I am admittedly a real hard-ass when it comes to lens quality control and have sent back lenses in the past for being decentered.

I first noticed that the rear lens cap was a bit loose on both. Something I have never seen before. Then with some initial testing, it appears both lenses are super bang on for sharpness and centering in the entire zoom range. I can't even find any nitpick fault. Well besides the lens caps nearly falling off in the boxes.

Is Adorama testing these before shipping? If so, sweet! I hate sending back gear.

I'll be buying all my lenses from them if there is testing being done to catch obvious lemons. This seems like too much of a coincidence.

We DO test them before shipping - but only on special request.

Well cool! I will make sure to request that next time.

Maybe Sigma is finally increasing their quality control, as my copy is better than all of the sample images I have viewed online in reviews. Centered to the pixel.

It also has a different construction than the images online. I wonder if it didn't quietly get a refresh?

I have noticed many of my brand new Canon lenses from various vendors have loose lens caps... It's strange!

I'm thinking the plastic lens caps not the metal mount being the problem.

The obvious would be to try an 'old' lens cap.

Might just be a batch of lens-caps went through a tiny bit larger or such - ergo finding a series of lenses with caps that are not as tight as they used to be. Could also just be a sign that the moulds for the cap are wearing out a little.

As for lens testing don't forget that manufacture tolerances are a range of values, not singular. Adorama might have a perfect lens on their camera, but it might be a touch less sharp on yours (generally speaking its nit-picking unless you have camera and lens at extreme opposite ends of the tolerance scale)

The lens caps were loose because they were not put on tight. They are totally in spec.
I don't care if they were loose. It just seemed strange to have two loose ones from sigma and canon in the same shipment. I never seem them shipped like that before. I've also never seen lenses this well centered let alone cheaper ones.

At this point i don't care for this order. I got more than I wanted with the quality of this order.

Also. Lens sharpness does not vary from copy to copy of camera body. Only AF and mount alignment change with bodies. At worst one corner might be softer than another. When two new lenses fit a body perfectly, the body is most likely in perfect spec.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17243593
Also. Lens sharpness does not vary from copy to copy of camera body. Only AF and mount alignment change with bodies. At worst one corner might be softer than another. When two new lenses fit a body perfectly, the body is most likely in perfect spec.

I am not sure if that is true. I believe Lens Rentals did a study and found the body can have some very slight differences in image quality putting AF aside... Strictly optical. I could be wrong, though! I am sure any changes are so slight though you would never see them without insane testing equipment.

It's probably from vibration and temperature changes during shipping causing the rear cap to back off slightly.

Invertalon wrote in post #17243833
I am not sure if that is true. I believe Lens Rentals did a study and found the body can have some very slight differences in image quality putting AF aside... Strictly optical. I could be wrong, though! I am sure any changes are so slight though you would never see them without insane testing equipment.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Basically its generally not a problem, if it is its often so slight you'll never notice it. Generally speaking stuff works - if it doesn't though it helps to be aware of all the possible reasons why it won't.

It's the main reason why if you think your lens is soft, you really have to ship the lens AND your camera body(ies) to the lens manufacturer to ensure that the lens works on those bodies. In an ideal world you'd ship your camera bodies to their manufacturer along with all those brand lenses to have the whole seutp tested and calibrated - then send your bodies (or one body as in theory they'd all have the same calibration now) and 3rd party lenses to those parties for calibration (Since 3rd parties will only touch the lens - and Canon will typically only touch the lens for calibration).

Keyan wrote in post #17243952
It's probably from vibration and temperature changes during shipping causing the rear cap to back off slightly.

Good call. These cheaper lenses seem to be packed in more loosely than the expensive L lenses. The 8-16 was just rattling around in a lens case that is twice as big as it needs to be.

Well, if these two lenses can survive UPS without being knock out of spec, then I'm golden. UPS really tried hard, as half the shipping box was crushed in.

What you guys are talking about is AF alignment/calibration. You have to send in your camera and lenses to make sure everything is one big happy orgy of glass and bodies.

You could do the same thing for making sure your lens mount and lenses are all centered properly.

Your camera would have to be smashed in half to allow enough off-centering to affect the sharpest parts of the image.

Canon Lover - AF alignment/calibration is different to critical sharpness calibration.

AF is the focus point element, ensuring that when the camera uses an AF point the point of most sharpness does land exactly upon that point. Because this is partly a computer selection this is now becoming something we can define in the camera itself through AF micro adjust. No elements are moving, just the cameras fine-tuning when using AF

The other is the critical sharpness possible at that point of focus. It's not linked to the AF calibration and is more linked to the elements in the lens and the sensor position and how they align.

Overread wrote in post #17244224
Canon Lover - AF alignment/calibration is different to critical sharpness calibration.

AF is the focus point element, ensuring that when the camera uses an AF point the point of most sharpness does land exactly upon that point. Because this is partly a computer selection this is now becoming something we can define in the camera itself through AF micro adjust. No elements are moving, just the cameras fine-tuning when using AF

The other is the critical sharpness possible at that point of focus. It's not linked to the AF calibration and is more linked to the elements in the lens and the sensor position and how they align.

While that is likely technically correct, the margin of visible distinction between various tolerances is probably only something a test bench could detect. Roger himself admits many of his tests have no relevance in the real world of shooting.

Many lenses can take an extension tube to alter the parameters you are talking about, and the results are often excellent.

You would have to be doing some insanely critical work, such as scientific observation, to really care about this issue if it does indeed exist to any detrimental amount.

Canon-lover - yes to an extent it is indeed nit-picking to the extreme degree. However it tends to be something that can rear its head with superzooms like the 100-400mm, more so than most other lenses. You can read of people that send it in for recalibration only to get it back softer, or with no change and its only when they send it in with the camera body they use as well that it comes back correct (or they just keep sending it in over and over and eventually the tolerance that the tech selects from the range on offer works).

You can also see it in the evolution of the lens and that its likely that its early production tolerances were far greater (leading to more problems); whilst over time they improved upon that aspect and thus its production and calibration improved (I think they also changed the same sizes for batch testing and did more frequent batch tests).