If you read a lot of end user lens test/experience forums you see lots
of reports of bad samples in all brands. Much of it is autofocus
problems but there is a fair amount of what sounds like mis-aligned lens
elements. Things like: image not sharp in upper left quadrant or some
such. I suspect the Japanese are having a lot of QC problems with lens
and camera production farmed out to China and elsewhere.
I've never had any particular qualms about buying a used 1980's lens
from ebay or elsewhere. I'm not so sure I'd buy a used DSLR lens. But
I'd still be pretty PO'd if, after buying a new super duper something or
other it disappeared for six weeks of fresh air and sunshine treatment
back with the manufacturer in order to make it focus properly.
Chuck Norcutt
Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 02:27 PM 1/21/2006, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>
>>How they do it is not as important as the question
>>of how acccurately minimum performance is represented. It could be
>>more accurate prediction than picking a lens off of the line, or
>>cherry picking, and actually measuring it.
>
>
> Photodo <http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/alllensesmtf.shtml>
> publishes MTF charts showing the results of actual tests and there
> are, at least with a couple of lenses, significant differences
> between their data and Canon's. I don't think that they cherry
> picked samples for their tests so the differences might well be due
> to sample to sample variations.
>
> Later,
> Johnny
>
> __________________________
> Johnny Johnson
> Cleveland, GA
> mailto:jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|