Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Variation in Identical lens's
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
May 21, 2012 15:56:35   #
Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine
 
Rip Tragle wrote:
No matter who printed it and how?


Assuming good quality prints.

Cheers,

R.

Reply
May 21, 2012 16:18:21   #
Rip Tragle Loc: Estes Park, CO
 
Assume away!

Reply
May 21, 2012 16:32:49   #
bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri
 
RE: jeep daddy, and tis a fine distal femur fracture you have. I know that chicks dig guys with scars, how about distal fractures? If so, let me know how and or where you got yours so I can get one. I need help because while I have more scars on my hands, arms and face than you can count, apparently chicks don't dig farming related scars. I think they must prefer something more like knife fight scars, wrasselin' with a bear scars, gun shot wound scars or mother-in-law inflicted scars.

Reply
 
 
May 21, 2012 16:33:08   #
rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
 
rpavich wrote:
jsenear wrote:
Over the years I have noticed a difference in identical lens's from the same manufacturer. Example: My son's Nikon Kit lens 18-55 VR is not nearly as sharp as mine. I"m talking about testing the lens on the same camera. Also both lens's were brand new when the test was done. We even did the test on two 50mm Nikon Prime lens's 1.8 and in this case my son's was much sharper. The tests were done with my D-50 and my son's D-40. The results were the same on both cameras. I realize the tests were subjective but I think there is some validity to this noticed variance.
Over the years I have noticed a difference in iden... (show quote)


After buying and returning counless lenses because they were "soft" I've come to the following conclusion about lenses:


There is an acceptable tolerance in lens manufacture; let's call it a "1-10" scale.

There is also an acceptable tolerance in Camera manufacture; let's also call it "1-10" scale.


When you have a lens like the 50mm and it looks sharp on one camera and not so sharp on another here is what's happening.


Your camera tolerances are biased towards the high side...let's give it a value of 8.


Your sons camera is biased towards the low side...we'll call it 2.



The 50mm lens is biased at a value of 3.


Now anything within say "3" increments is considered acceptable.

Your son's camera and the lens almost match perfectly...the lens focuses great because the manufacturing tolerances are "built up" in the correct matching direction.


Unfortunately your camera, while good, is toleranced in the opposite direction and so you see this same lens as "bad"...out of focus...soft.

If you were to get another lens that happened to be biased more towards the "10" side you'd say that it was great and your son wouldn't be so pleased.


I learned this because I finally got a camera that has adjustable AF...I can tune each lens to my camera.


I found that ALL of my lenses have to be tuned to the negative side of the "0" tolerance scale due to my camera's manufacturing tolerance shift.


Some, more than others..but they all have had it.


If every camera could be tuned to every lens I don't think we'd have this kind of conversation very much.



Does that make sense?
quote=jsenear Over the years I have noticed a dif... (show quote)


Sounds like a lesson on the difference between precision and accuracy.

Reply
May 21, 2012 17:51:08   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
rayford2 wrote:
rpavich wrote:
jsenear wrote:
Over the years I have noticed a difference in identical lens's from the same manufacturer. Example: My son's Nikon Kit lens 18-55 VR is not nearly as sharp as mine. I"m talking about testing the lens on the same camera. Also both lens's were brand new when the test was done. We even did the test on two 50mm Nikon Prime lens's 1.8 and in this case my son's was much sharper. The tests were done with my D-50 and my son's D-40. The results were the same on both cameras. I realize the tests were subjective but I think there is some validity to this noticed variance.
Over the years I have noticed a difference in iden... (show quote)


After buying and returning counless lenses because they were "soft" I've come to the following conclusion about lenses:


There is an acceptable tolerance in lens manufacture; let's call it a "1-10" scale.

There is also an acceptable tolerance in Camera manufacture; let's also call it "1-10" scale.


When you have a lens like the 50mm and it looks sharp on one camera and not so sharp on another here is what's happening.


Your camera tolerances are biased towards the high side...let's give it a value of 8.


Your sons camera is biased towards the low side...we'll call it 2.



The 50mm lens is biased at a value of 3.


Now anything within say "3" increments is considered acceptable.

Your son's camera and the lens almost match perfectly...the lens focuses great because the manufacturing tolerances are "built up" in the correct matching direction.


Unfortunately your camera, while good, is toleranced in the opposite direction and so you see this same lens as "bad"...out of focus...soft.

If you were to get another lens that happened to be biased more towards the "10" side you'd say that it was great and your son wouldn't be so pleased.


I learned this because I finally got a camera that has adjustable AF...I can tune each lens to my camera.


I found that ALL of my lenses have to be tuned to the negative side of the "0" tolerance scale due to my camera's manufacturing tolerance shift.


Some, more than others..but they all have had it.


If every camera could be tuned to every lens I don't think we'd have this kind of conversation very much.



Does that make sense?
quote=jsenear Over the years I have noticed a dif... (show quote)


Sounds like a lesson on the difference between precision and accuracy.
quote=rpavich quote=jsenear Over the years I hav... (show quote)


I guess I don't get your meaning.

All things manufactured by humans have a tolerance. How acceptable that tolerance is is a matter of opinion.

Anyone can make anything as tight a tolerance as possible..that's not a big trick...but who will pay for it?

There is always a cost-benefit breaking point in manufacturing.

Reply
May 21, 2012 19:04:25   #
home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
Tolerance stackup can make a big differences. I have seen worse case assemblies that did not go together in trucks and in high tolerance devices sold to the military; due assembly and part tolerances. Loosening a few screws and all was well. Companies try to make 6 sigma designs (99.997% defect free) which comes close to preventing out of tolereance assemblies. But still there is a range of acceptable in tolerance test results. I was in one plant where parts were inspected and matched to produce the best results.

One ten thousands of an inch could make a diference; of course the parts are like using metric. Sad fact is that there is variation. And given enough samples and time we could pick out the better lens and camera.

The test with respect to sharpness that I posted last week showed that for me; the operator was likely the largest contributor to lack of sharpness.

I wonder if all manufactures do 100% acceptance inspection; or do they do a sample to buy a lot of parts. I have seem escapes from reliable vendors using the sampe or AQL method of accecting parts.

Also consider that some camras fit some hands better than others. I know that it is that way with hand guns.

My conclusion is there is variation in cameras and lenses; there has to be.

Reply
May 21, 2012 19:37:25   #
r_jak
 
Hi, I'm new in the forum. To the jsenear question I can say: If you want to be happy, don't compare lenses...;-)

Reply
 
 
May 21, 2012 19:57:04   #
Rip Tragle Loc: Estes Park, CO
 
Amen, A-gain.

Reply
May 22, 2012 01:46:00   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
bikinkawboy wrote:
RE: jeep daddy, and tis a fine distal femur fracture you have. I know that chicks dig guys with scars, how about distal fractures? If so, let me know how and or where you got yours so I can get one. I need help because while I have more scars on my hands, arms and face than you can count, apparently chicks don't dig farming related scars. I think they must prefer something more like knife fight scars, wrasselin' with a bear scars, gun shot wound scars or mother-in-law inflicted scars.


I don't think chicks will dig my scar story but just so you know - I was riding my dirt bike in the Mojave Desert riding up a moderately steep hill and I ran out of talent. When that happens, sometimes things break. I really messed up my weekend this time. A very expensive helicopter ride to a trauma center and $115,000, and 2 years later I still can't work. I've got a rod the entire length of my right femur, 5 screws near my knee and one at the hip. The day after surgery they wanted me to leave but soon discovered that the other leg was broken as well. Just one large scar on the front of my right knee and a moderate scar on the side of my knee and a bit of a limp. It doesn't keep my from my photography, but I usually have trouble keeping up with normal people. I tell them to go ahead; I'll catch up. It gives me more time to see what I need to see and I usually capture more images than they do.

Reply
May 22, 2012 12:57:04   #
bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri
 
Ran out of talent, I love that description. I've dumped my bike a few times over the years, but I wasn't talented enough to do that much physical damage. It's amazing how sometimes a seemingly insignificant action can result in such profound and lasting changes to one's life. Hang in there and give it your best.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.