about to buy lens, need QC advice

Pindy

I'm about to pull the trigger on a $1k lens.

My question is more of a poll: Would you trust a mail-order shop to give you a good copy the first time, or would you buy locally, usually at higher cost, plus tax, but you get to see the lens (or several iterations of it) and mount it to check for quality control. The talk about getting unsharp specimens has me a little nervous.

Thanks

ziggy53

Pindy wrote:

I'm about to pull the trigger on a $1k lens.

My question is more of a poll: Would you trust a mail-order shop to give you a good copy the first time, or would you buy locally, usually at higher cost, plus tax, but you get to see the lens (or several iterations of it) and mount it to check for quality control. The talk about getting unsharp specimens has me a little nervous.

Thanks

Regardless where you purchase, test the lens to determine its suitability for "your" use. That means testing in as close as possible to the conditions you expect to encounter for your purposes.

I once tested 3 lenses before I found one usable for my task. All were mail order, but it wouldn't have mattered, because I couldn't have run the tests at a store. Returning the items was rather expensive, but the satisfaction of having a lens with known properties and reliable performance was well worth it.

ziggy53

Pindy

good advice.

Scotty_R

I suppose it depends upon the mail order house you're buying from. I've bought many high dollar lenses from B&H in New York City and have never had any trouble dealing with them if the lens was anything less than perfect. But I've only had once incident in many years when they've shipped me a lens that was less than what I had expected and hoped for. Know your seller.

Pindy

Scotty_R wrote:

I suppose it depends upon the mail order house you're buying from. I've bought many high dollar lenses from B&H in New York City and have never had any trouble dealing with them if the lens was anything less than perfect. But I've only had once incident in many years when they've shipped me a lens that was less than what I had expected and hoped for. Know your seller.

Yes, quite.

I suppose what I'm angling for is this answer: What's the state of QC in lenses these days? If tolerances are wide, does it make sense to view through multiple units of the same lens and choose the best? Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

ziggy53

Pindy wrote:

Yes, quite.

I suppose what I'm angling for is this answer: What's the state of QC in lenses these days? If tolerances are wide, does it make sense to view through multiple units of the same lens and choose the best? Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

If you could describe which lens you're interested in, you would probably get some better responses about user experiences.

I don't think it's either fair or safe to try to describe "all" Canon lenses as one quality, or all Sigma lenses as another quality. That would be a hasty generalization, and I wouldn't give it any credence, because I have had good and bad experiences with all major manufacturers products. (Except for Vivitar, which sadly has very few new lenses I would actually consider or recommend.)

ziggy53

Pindy

I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

I am aware of the dust thing. Otherwise, I hear it has excellent IQ.

ziggy53

Pindy wrote:

I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

I am aware of the dust thing. Otherwise, I hear it has excellent IQ.

I think we have a couple of members with that lens, and I don't recall any problems mentioned.

A Google turns up a couple of vocal folks on the Internet who believe that lens sucks in dust. One of those individuals claims that his second copy of the lens didn't exhibit the same problem. I don't think it's anything to worry about, because I believe that lens has been pretty successful, so even if there were two instances, that is statistically insignificant.

I also did not find any evidence of any other major failing or fault or quality control problem with that lens. Some people claim the fit and finish is sub-par, but I think they are comparing to "L" series lenses.

It's your money, but I think I would easily recommend that lens as a safe purchase, if from a reputable dealer, B&H being favored for that type purchase.

ziggy53

Pindy

ziggy53 wrote:

It's your money, but I think I would easily recommend that lens as a safe purchase, if from a reputable dealer, B&H being favored for that type purchase.

ziggy53

Yeah B&H have been great. 17th Street, too.

Thanks again for the assistance.

mercphoto

There are a few reputable mail order houses, but I personally do prefer to shop local. Partly so that I have a person to talk with about questions and issues (I deal with the same sales person each time). Partly out of the very fear you have -- getting a bad copy. But I am lucky to have an excellent local camera store in Austin, which makes it easier to fork over the extra $.

Pindy

mercphoto wrote:

There are a few reputable mail order houses, but I personally do prefer to shop local. Partly so that I have a person to talk with about questions and issues (I deal with the same sales person each time). Partly out of the very fear you have -- getting a bad copy. But I am lucky to have an excellent local camera store in Austin, which makes it easier to fork over the extra $.

I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.

Razrx

What makes a Pro Lens?
I am new to the world of DSLR and I was wondering what makes a Pro Lens? I have read so much info its kind of hard to tell what is what.


Oh, if you wanted to know I shoot Nikon but my friend shoots Canon so both are welcome.

Again thanks for any help possible.

Pindy

Razrx wrote:

I am new to the world of DSLR and I was wondering what makes a Pro Lens? I have read so much info its kind of hard to tell what is what.

Oh, if you wanted to know I shoot Nikon but my friend shoots Canon so both are welcome.

Again thanks for any help possible.

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense. Any pro can use a cheap lens and do more with it than the rest of us, but here's a good starting point, in response to your question:

Canon L-Series Lenses

Perhaps somebody could chime in on Nikon's lenses. I believe ED glass is the ticket.

mercphoto

Pindy wrote:

I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.

My personal opinion is that it is unfair to expect a local brick and mortar shop to price match the Internet or most mail order houses. Retail space can be expensive to rent. Sales people to pay. The benefit of face-to-face communication, hold it before you buy it, etc. My opinion.

sirsloop

Ive had great experiences from BH for many years, many products, and many thousands of dollars

why chance it?

Did you scope out the 17-40L? You can get that and 580ex for a grand at BH after the $120 rebate!! NO dust issue... tried and true lens. The lens hood and bad should come with it too...

Pindy

sirsloop wrote:

Ive had great experiences from BH for many years, many products, and many thousands of dollars

why chance it?

Did you scope out the 17-40L? You can get that and 580ex for a grand at BH after the $120 rebate!! NO dust issue... tried and true lens. The lens hood and bad should come with it too...

I did, but it's all about the 2.8 for me. I tend to shoot more indoors in really poorly lit places and need all the help I can get. I spend most of my time in studios and the like. Otherwise, the 17-40L seems like a great outdoor lens. I could use the 580ex as well... AARGH!

Razrx

Pindy wrote:

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense. Any pro can use a cheap lens and do more with it than the rest of us, but here's a good starting point, in response to your question:

Canon L-Series Lenses

Perhaps somebody could chime in on Nikon's lenses. I believe ED glass is the ticket.

Thank you very much for the info...With all of the choices today, it is hard to tell what is what anymore. Back in the day when I did this AI lens for Nikon was the way to go. True I could still use those, but you lose some of the metering from what I understand or I may have been reading the wrong forums.

Again, thank you for the quick response!

Pindy

Razrx wrote:

Thank you very much for the info...With all of the choices today, it is hard to tell what is what anymore. Back in the day when I did this AI lens for Nikon was the way to go. True I could still use those, but you lose some of the metering from what I understand or I may have been reading the wrong forums.

Again, thank you for the quick response!

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

ziggy53

Pindy wrote:

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

While it's true that there are "grades" of lenses within each manufacturer, it's best to qualify each lens by its particular traits and how it meets "your" needs. You don't always "need" a Canon "L" lens, or a Nikon "IF-ED, VR", or whatever.

Try not to over simplify the situation.

Determine your needs first, then find the tool that best fits that need.

A great explanation here:

http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec3.htm

ziggy53

Pindy

ziggy53 wrote:

Try not to over simplify the situation.

Determine your needs first, then find the tool that best fits that need.

I'm pretty sure I was deliberately not oversimplifying the situation by way of the following:

"Pro" is a kind of questionable designation in a sense... but here's a good starting point, in response to your question...

My 50mm f/1.4 is magic—NOT an L. Weather sealing, ring USM (for Canons at least) and metal construction seems to be a badge of "professional" standard, however. As you imply, there is both a technical and a creative answer to the question, and these answers may not necessarily coincide.

Again, thank you for your input.


That link is very helpful!

ziggy53

Pindy wrote:

I'm pretty sure I was deliberately not oversimplifying the situation by way of the following: ...



My 50mm f/1.4 is magic—NOT an L. Weather sealing, ring USM (for Canons at least) and metal construction seems to be a badge of "professional" standard, however. As you imply, there is both a technical and a creative answer to the question, and these answers may not necessarily coincide.

Again, thank you for your input.


That link is very helpful!

Pindy wrote:

I would love to know if Nikon has certain grades of quality that are distinguishable by initials.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that everything you said was an oversimplification, only the above statement. I gather now that you may have been asking somewhat sarcastically?

I agree with you that the 50mm, f1.4 is a great lens at a great price.

Best,

ziggy53

Pindy

ziggy53 wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that everything you said was an oversimplification, only the above statement. I gather now that you may have been asking somewhat sarcastically?

Oops. I didn't mean to sound narky or take that as offensive. It was late when I wrote that and I think I didn't express myself correctly. Most lens companies seem to have a litany of abbreviations and a legend of these crypts would be helpful.

sirsloop

If you shoot indoors a lot, you may want to consider getting a 35 f/2, or 50 f/1.4 instead. I shoot all the time with my 35/2.. its a fantastic lens and its inexpensive. To be honest, f/2.8 isnt all that great when you compare to f/1.4 or even the 35/2!! Thats nearly two extra stops with the 50/1.4!

I'll be honest and tell you I dont like that 17-55IS. I think for 1100 bucks, the body is a plastic hunk of junk and yes its prone to get dust on the internal lenses. The optics are spot on from what I have heard, but there are other lenses out there that do just as well. You either sacrifice zoom and gain 1~2 stops, or get a better body and sacrifice 1 stop.

Pindy

sirsloop wrote:

If you shoot indoors a lot, you may want to consider getting a 35 f/2, or 50 f/1.4 instead. I shoot all the time with my 35/2.. its a fantastic lens and its inexpensive. To be honest, f/2.8 isnt all that great when you compare to f/1.4 or even the 35/2!! Thats nearly two extra stops with the 50/1.4!

Yes, I have the 50 f/1.4 and it's great. I think I'd get more utility out of the Sigma 30 f/1.4 on a 1.6x FOVCF body such as mine. I should try the 35/2.

I'll be honest and tell you I dont like that 17-55IS. I think for 1100 bucks, the body is a plastic hunk of junk and yes its prone to get dust on the internal lenses. The optics are spot on from what I have heard, but there are other lenses out there that do just as well.

"Just as well" as f/2.8 and IS can only be f/2 or lower, I take you to mean. There is currently no other 2.8 + IS lens in this focal range.

You either sacrifice zoom and gain 1~2 stops, or get a better body and sacrifice 1 stop.

I have thought often of getting another f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Please explain the "better body" comment—I'm not following you.

sirsloop

If i'm going to spend over $1000 on a lens, it had better be made of metal so if it accidentally gets dropped... it doesnt shatter into a million pieces

Pindy

sirsloop wrote:

If i'm going to spend over $1000 on a lens, it had better be made of metal so if it accidentally gets dropped... it doesnt shatter into a million pieces

You bring up my main point of contention. Blast you—you've cast me into doubt once more!

I think I shall go down to the shop with an open mind.

sirsloop

lol... im not trying to be confusing, only trying to present some of the other options that may result in a better assortment of equiptment for you to use with the amount of money you are willing to spend. If you don't have a 580ex, or any hot shoe flash... that would be high on my list. Definitly higher than an thousand $ plastic lens that doesnt come with a hood or lens bag, and is prone to get dust in it. I do see that they are now only $1000 from BH.... still at least $250 overpriced IMHO.

:deadhorse

Pindy

sirsloop wrote:

lol... im not trying to be confusing, only trying to present some of the other options that may result in a better assortment of equiptment for you to use with the amount of money you are willing to spend. If you don't have a 580ex, or any hot shoe flash... that would be high on my list. Definitly higher than an thousand $ plastic lens that doesnt come with a hood or lens bag, and is prone to get dust in it. I do see that they are now only $1000 from BH.... still at least $250 overpriced IMHO.

:deadhorse

on your list of HQ primes, what would be the top 3 for 1.6x?

sirsloop

at what price point?? I can think of a few that are over a grand myself that I wouldnt mind owning

Assuming we are talking about ones under 100mm... the cheaper ones are the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 in that order. I'd love the 35/1.4L but not gonna happen cause lots of cash and the 35/2 is primo to begin with. Over 100mm... thats a dangerous discussion cause i'll start looking into prices on B&H again wink

Pindy

sirsloop wrote:

at what price point?? I can think of a few that are over a grand myself that I wouldnt mind owning

Assuming we are talking about ones under 100mm... the cheaper ones are the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 in that order. I'd love the 35/1.4L but not gonna happen cause lots of cash and the 35/2 is primo to begin with. Over 100mm... thats a dangerous discussion cause i'll start looking into prices on B&H again wink

Let's leave above 100mm aside then.

the missing range for me is 20-70. I have the 50/1.4—sorted there.

If I'm NOT going to buy the 17-55 IS, then what am I looking at "walkaround" style? I can afford the 17-55, so there's your price point. If I'm going to go prime here, I should be getting equal or better quality to the 50/1.4, so no holds barred with those L-series recommendations.

Macro is also a consideration, assuming I have upwards of 1,200 to spend. Perhaps I could wangle a decent macro plus the 35/2. The flash on top would be nice. Oh I hate the option anxiety.

To give you an idea, I own the following: 10-22/3.5-4.5, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L IS

sirsloop

I sold my 50mm cause I never used it after I got my 35/2. If you can handle minor focus motor noise, then you'll love this lens. If you are really willing to spend 1200 on something... try out the 35/2 for $225 and see what you think. I think you'll love the lens and that'll give you a grand to put elsewhere.