Jump to content

Sony Zeiss Quality

RobH69

By RobH69,
in General Discussions about Sony Alpha

 Share

Recommended Posts

RobH69 Newbie

RobH69

Posted
Posted

Beware, The build quality of sony zeiss lenses is very bad. This is why. 

 

I have a "Sony SAL 24 mm 2.0" mounted on a A900. Last year the "Diaframa glass" of the lens was dropped into the lens, because it is glued from the inside.

 

I send it to repaired..According to Sony this will cost me 922.42 Euro repair cost and another 75 euro on investigation.

The new value is 1100 euro.

 

This lens is optical very good, but this is a design failure. So who will ever will buy this piece of crap..

 

My conclusion...It is a shame that Zeiss put it name on this lenses.......

 

Greetings Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Kelly

Guest Peter Kelly

Posted
Posted

It's never easy to correctly place the blame in these complicated manufacturing marriages, but you may just be unlucky.

Here you may well have a lens designed by Zeiss, to Sony specifications, made by Cosina, so hard to know where the blame ultimately lies, although you'd look at Cosina first.

 

I am more than a little puzzled that they don't take any responsibility for the lens just falling apart. Here in the UK that wouldn't be allowed as an expensive lens would be expected to last a long time and give good service. Such a failure would be contrary to the Sale of Goods Act and give you grounds for a claim. Has anyone given you a possible reason for the fault?

 

Also, I would like to know what is the 'Diaframa glass'? I've never heard of it and can't find any reference to it either, so anything you can tell me would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Cameratose
      Bokeh?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      Shooting a cactus flower is probably where you do want to have nice bokeh. I can't recall which camera you're shooting, or maybe you haven't said, but using live view you can see what the shot will look like before you press the button. Try setting up on a flower or something stationary where you can control the background and see the changes different settings make. 
    • Pieter
      Bokeh?

      By Pieter · Posted

      That's what I got from your post here: When shooting at f/11, bokeh is indeed not something you should be concerned with, unless when shooting closeup. Nearly all lenses have a polygonal iris shape at f/11 which naturally gives a more edgy rendering of out of focus areas. @Cameratose's example is perfect for demonstrating the relevance of bokeh. To some extent you can influence the backdrop of a shot, but if it is busy foliage relatively close by, it'd better not be distracting from your subject. Some lenses are able to create a more pleasing background than others, even at the same aperture setting and focal length. For the impact of the entire image one might even argue that the smoothness of the background is as relevant as the sharpness of the subject.
    • Mr. Lips
      Bokeh?

      By Mr. Lips · Posted

      Like Cameratose, I usually go for as much depth of field as I can, but sometimes there is no getting around out of focus areas, such as a closeup of a cactus flower.  I guess, everything else being equal, I might be concerned about a lenses bokeh, but everything else is seldom equal.  At this point in my photography I think I have bigger problems than unattractive bokeh.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...