Lens Saga continued

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by vinyl tap, Oct 7, 2013.

  1. vinyl tap

    vinyl tap Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 15, 2012
    California, USA
    I bought a used lens, wasn't happy, so bought a new lens for comparison. I'm not taking any polls or blaming anyone. After all the seller didn't build it. He bought it that way as countless other buyers & re-sellers know.

    However, I simply want to show the images between the seller's described as "excellent" lens vs a new lens from from Idaho camera bought on 10/1/2013 and delivered on 10/4/2013.

    This time, I controlled all variables, ISO, shutter speed, f stop, and the pictures were taken seconds apart. Actually one lens was at 9mm and the other was at 10mm, dag nab it.

    The first pics, at least to me, clearly represents how the lenses respond in strong light. The second set is more subtle. However please observe where the strongest light is. In the shade there's little if any difference.

    BTW, if you don't think there's much difference. The old lens is for sale at $430 regular PayPal & shipping costs included.


    Attached Files:

  2. vinyl tap

    vinyl tap Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 15, 2012
    California, USA
    Pics 1 & 4 are new lens. 2 & 3 are old lens.
  3. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    May 16, 2013
    Looks like the old lens could use a cleaning. I see a hazing effect.
  4. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012
    I'm a big fan of 'new' (perfect, we hope, or can return it) gear. However, I've been lucky in the past several months when purchasing a used G3, 14-140, and 14-45, all of which appeared and worked fantastic (and for 1/2 or less than a new copy).

    Sorry to hear the used lens you got was a dud.
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    If this is accurate then you have a metering problem, not a lens issue. Picture 2 has an exposure issue on the palm tree and picture 4 has an exposure problem with the houses just beyond the dark car at the end of the sidewalk. Since the same issue shows up with both lenses then the problem is with the camera settings.
  6. vinyl tap

    vinyl tap Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 15, 2012
    California, USA
    STR, I looked through the used lens. I don't see moisture (a previous suggestion) or haze, although my near vision is not what it used to be.

    RevBob, the metering is the same for both lenses. Please check. I shot the first lens in P mode, then duplicated the settings in M mode. I then reversed the sequence, using the camera to meter the second lens in P mode, then using that setting for the first in M. I even used the touch screen to focus on same spot. The kicker is, I've also reduced exposure to -.7, -1.0, and - 1.7. The lighter area consistently looks overexposed to rest of picture.
  7. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    May 16, 2013
    It's faint and really only shows up in bright light, but that's what it looks like to me.

    I might be totally talking from my ass, so take that as you will.
  8. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    It would be useful to have the EXIF data for all the shots. Beyond that I would set the exposure to manual and keep it set with both lenses wide open for the sake of argument and take the same image.
  9. hazwing

    hazwing Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 25, 2012
    It's interesting to see this compared to a new lens. Seeing the original photos I didn't think much of it. Previous comparisions were not standardised and I can see why the seller would be skeptical.

    I can sort of see the 'glow' effect you were referring to, but the exposures in #1 and #2 are not the same, I don't feel they are good to use in a comparison. #3 and #4 appear to have more similar exposures, the glow is much less noticeable, but in my eyes I still see something there (in the bright part of the image).

    I wouldn't consider it any person's fault. Just resell it and move on.
  10. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    I sent a lens back to a guy. It was the Sigma 30/2.8 in "excellent with no dust" for like $110. I got it and there was a rather large reflective speck behind the front element. If he didn't let me return it (because it was not as described) I would have sold it on (mentioning the dust) and given him negative feedback. But I returned it and bought a new one when I found a sale.
  11. vinyl tap

    vinyl tap Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 15, 2012
    California, USA
    Thanks for everyone's input whether you agreed or disagreed. Helps with my perspective. I especially appreciate the PM. I'm ready to move on so this will be my last post on this subject. Plus it's in PayPal now.

    I apologize for the missing EXIFs. Is it removed when we upload pics as attachments here? For those that are interested, I re-uploaded the pictures to my dpreview gallery.


    Contrary to some suggestions, the exposure is identical for similar pictures.

    1st set: ISO 200, 1/125, f/7.1
    2nd set: ISO 200, 1/160, f/8

    I understand shooting wide open would reveal even more characters of the lens, but I choose natural conditions that I'd expect to shoot in.

    Signing off, James
  12. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    Even new lenses will show sample variations from the same production line.

    I wouldn't worry myself over something trivial like this.
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Photo Number2 definitely shows some bright haze, almost as if someone got a bit of chip grease on the front or back element.
    It can be invisible to the naked eye : clean both surfaces and see if it's fixed.

    The first thread did not show anything like this issue, by the way.
  14. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    The thing is, the lens with the "problem" is the old lens in one set and the new lens in the other. If you go to the dpreview page the palm tree pictures are at different exposures: one at 1/160 and the other at 1/125. This still looks like an exposure problem to me.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.