Copy variation of lenses thread

[ForenSeil]

Hi!
Especially sovjet lenses are known to have a massive quality spreading between the copies.

But how strict was and is the quality control big brands like Carl Zeiss West, Car Zeiss Jena, Nikon, Minolta, Canon, Pentacon, Meyer, Konica, Rollei, Cosina Voigtländer,... and so on?

Here a comparision between two
Minolta MD 50/1.4 - both in nice condition


Both are perfectly focused, photo made with tripod, in M-mode and with self timer.
If you look closely you can find visible differences (look at the "REMY" of the left bottle for example!).

If you have a lens of any brand twice or more often please post a comparision!

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Lloydy]

I've looked at them both full size on Flickr and there is a slight difference all across the images. The candle flame is bigger in the second image, could it be brighter, casting a haze, or somehow affecting the final image?
I've a few lenses that I've got more than one copy, 3 Helios 44-M, 2 Pentax 50 / 1.7, 2 Canon 50 / 1.8 and 2 Zuiko 50 / 1.8. I'll have to try and have a shoot out.

[Attila]

I saw little copy variant issues on lenses include Russians. I didn't see ever copy variant issue on well known brands.

[fermy]

[Aanything]

The only lens of which i owned enough copies is helios 44.
Many had very little differences that could be due to copy variation, but these were extremely subtle.
The two ones that performed objectively worse than the others were one in awful condition and the other probably wrongly reassembled by a previous owner.
Too many variables to make any claim, one should have many new ones to be sure.

[aoleg]

I saw copy variation between two samples of Olympus OM Zuiko 28/2.0. Here are my findings:

- center sharpness wide open: same;
- corner sharpness wide open: sample 1 slightly better than sample 2;
- stopped down sharpness (2.8 and smaller): equal performance;
- vignetting: sample 2 has stronger vignetting (!);
- color balance: when manual color balance was employed in the same lighting conditions, sample 2 showed neutral colors, while sample 1 had slight but visible greenish tint.

Interestingly, sample 1 was the earlier version marked as "MC", while sample 2 was a later plain "Zuiko". Sample 1 was well used (and I kept it), sample 2 looked brand new and came in a box (now sold).

While I can understand sharpness issues, particularly in the corners of images produced with fast wide-angle lenses, I am totally puzzled of different vignetting and color balance characteristics of the two samples. No centering or spacing issues could possibly cause this.

Also, huge copy variation between today's Pentax lenses: my first copy of SMC Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 was soft on one side (decentering). Returned for another copy, which was (and still is) perfect. Photozone.de quotes decentering issues of varying degree for many, if not most lenses they see in their lab. Now with this kind of QC I can totally agree that older lenses DID have much better build quality and QC.

[visualopsins]

Light is different in each photo.

Russian lens variation I don't know. GDR variation is documented, such as Pentaocn 2.8/135...

[Lloydy]

I forgot.....I've got two Soligor 400's. ( anyone want to buy one ? )

I might try the 3 Helios together, I don't think the bad reputation of the Russian glass is wholly deserved, I do know that the quality standards of the Russian manufacturing industries was a lottery, I had a Lada Niva for many years! Although a lens is a precision item ( compared to a 4x4 Lada ) it is also a fairly simple construction, it just makes it a bit more difficult to get completely wrong.
The three lenses I have are all in similar good condition, I just pick one up and use it and see no glaring difference. I can try them on the NEX when I get a chance.

[Attila]

Russian gears made millions of copies on affordable price their quality, price ratio still unbeatable, I think copy variant issue is easy if you like it no matter may a better exists , if not like it also no matter, just buy another one. I bought and try 20+ Flektogon 20mm f2.8 lens all did perform very similar I remember for one copy what was above others.

[Excalibur]

The Yashica DSB 55mm f2, in excellent condition on the outside, that came with the camera was crap, another given to me by a member was quite good.

[kendo1]

[Excalibur]

[kendo1]

Yashica lenses have their uses...

[iangreenhalgh1]

[ManualFocus-G]

I'm not sure in this instance. ForenSeil, the first image looks front focused and the second back focused. Check both sides of the image at 100%, particularly the writing.