Sony FE 85mm f1.4 Gmaster test shots

[3kramd5]

I do agree that in the grand scheme of quality engineering glue might have its place (something to fix the tea mug of the engineer should he break it maybe?) .

Or to attach major pieces of structure in a multi-billion dollar spacecraft, for example.

Or fenders (wings) on cars, ever tried removing them to do a simple fender replacement?

The point is glue has its pros and cons, the massive con is that it is, by design, not meant to be taken apart, which doesn't help if you are in the service business as well as the sales business.

Note, your parenthetical came across as suggesting glue is only good for unimportant simple fixes, which is demonstrably false.

I agree with your stated point above, although the difficulty in disassembling glued joints is only a massive con to a service organization if disassembling a glued joint is necessary to perform service. Perhaps glued parts are intended to be discarded and replaced as a set, in which case it's of no consequence to the service provider.

No, glue is also a massive con/fail if it wasn't engineered right, like the glue 'solution' in the Sony 24-70 f/4 ZA OSS, if the glue fails then it is bad design as there really is no excuse for it.

The lens in this article (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/tearing-down-the-sony-24-70-f4-za-oss-vario-tessar/) was effectively written off because it was considered economically un-repairable, the fault? The one blob of glue failed. That is an engineering fail.

Didn't Roger's guy repair that lens?

 

[bwud]

I do agree that in the grand scheme of quality engineering glue might have its place (something to fix the tea mug of the engineer should he break it maybe?) .

Or to attach major pieces of structure in a multi-billion dollar spacecraft, for example.

Or fenders (wings) on cars, ever tried removing them to do a simple fender replacement?

The point is glue has its pros and cons, the massive con is that it is, by design, not meant to be taken apart, which doesn't help if you are in the service business as well as the sales business.

Note, your parenthetical came across as suggesting glue is only good for unimportant simple fixes, which is demonstrably false.

I agree with your stated point above, although the difficulty in disassembling glued joints is only a massive con to a service organization if disassembling a glued joint is necessary to perform service. Perhaps glued parts are intended to be discarded and replaced as a set, in which case it's of no consequence to the service provider.

No, glue is also a massive con/fail if it wasn't engineered right

Anything improperly engineered is an engineering fail.

, like the glue 'solution' in the Sony 24-70 f/4 ZA OSS, if the glue fails then it is bad design as there really is no excuse for it.
The lens in this article (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/tearing-down-the-sony-24-70-f4-za-oss-vario-tessar/) was effectively written off because it was considered economically un-repairable, the fault? The one blob of glue failed. That is an engineering fail.

Possibly, but how do you know? Have you done a root cause analysis? What caused the glue to fail?

Is this an engineering fail, or is it absolved from your standard of "if it fails it's a bad design" because it isn't an adhesive joint?

 

[Larsskv]

I do agree that in the grand scheme of quality engineering glue might have its place (something to fix the tea mug of the engineer should he break it maybe?) .

Or to attach major pieces of structure in a multi-billion dollar spacecraft, for example.

Or fenders (wings) on cars, ever tried removing them to do a simple fender replacement?

The point is glue has its pros and cons, the massive con is that it is, by design, not meant to be taken apart, which doesn't help if you are in the service business as well as the sales business.

Note, your parenthetical came across as suggesting glue is only good for unimportant simple fixes, which is demonstrably false.

I agree with your stated point above, although the difficulty in disassembling glued joints is only a massive con to a service organization if disassembling a glued joint is necessary to perform service. Perhaps glued parts are intended to be discarded and replaced as a set, in which case it's of no consequence to the service provider.

No, glue is also a massive con/fail if it wasn't engineered right

Anything improperly engineered is an engineering fail.

, like the glue 'solution' in the Sony 24-70 f/4 ZA OSS, if the glue fails then it is bad design as there really is no excuse for it.
The lens in this article (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/tearing-down-the-sony-24-70-f4-za-oss-vario-tessar/) was effectively written off because it was considered economically un-repairable, the fault? The one blob of glue failed. That is an engineering fail.

Possibly, but how do you know? Have you done a root cause analysis? What caused the glue to fail?

Is this an engineering fail, or is it absolved from your standard of "if it fails it's a bad design" because it isn't an adhesive joint?

I know of only one that have the new 85 G master, and this one guy has one that makes bad noises and has scratches inside of it, that seems to be related to the noise. Of the samples I have heard of so far, (coming from others than those YouTube reviewers who got a fully sponsored trip from Sony to Florida to test the new lenses (Steve Nichols, Toby Gelston, Tony Northrup+++)) that is a 100% fail rate.

Posting a picture of a heavily used L lens that obviously had a hard knock on it, or worse, really don't prove anything other than the fact that you abuse your lenses, and obviously are going to need anything not Sony.

And regarding the glue, and those disputing that it is an engineering flaw, you should be aware that in the Zeiss Batis that Roger Cicala took apart, the solution was improved so that the glue isn't the only thing holding it together. If it was a good design to begin with, why change it?

 

[privatebydesign]

, like the glue 'solution' in the Sony 24-70 f/4 ZA OSS, if the glue fails then it is bad design as there really is no excuse for it.
The lens in this article (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/tearing-down-the-sony-24-70-f4-za-oss-vario-tessar/) was effectively written off because it was considered economically un-repairable, the fault? The one blob of glue failed. That is an engineering fail.

Possibly, but how do you know? Have you done a root cause analysis? What caused the glue to fail?

Is this an engineering fail, or is it absolved from your standard of "if it fails it's a bad design" because it isn't an adhesive joint?

The glue failed, it shouldn't have, issue one.
Because the glue failed a section of lens needs replacing instead of one part, issue two.
Because the part the detached piece is glued to is so expensive it meant the repair was uneconomical, issue three.

The Canon lens is designed to do that, indeed I did it to my own 16-35 and 11-24! The shear piece is a designed weak spot that is supposed to break in the event of a heavy impact when mounted on a camera, the reason it is designed to do that is because it prevents further shock and damage to the glass and the body it is attached to. When I did it to my 16-35 f2.8 it cost $150 to repair, when I did it to my 11-24 they fixed it for free, both repairs took less than a week out of my hands.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18910.msg353605#msg353605
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27446.msg542474#msg542474

 

[bwud]

"The glue failed, it shouldn't have, issue one."

Sure, but to support the assertion that the glue failed because of an engineering flaw, one must know why it failed.

Because the glue failed a section of lens needs replacing instead of one part, issue two.
Because the part the detached piece is glued to is so expensive it meant the repair was uneconomical, issue three.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem that those two statements are correct. From the lensrentals blog post:

"We figured we had nothing to lose, so we glued it back. (Do not try this at home unless you have a good ventilated hood or something similar. Glue fumes can totally eat the coating off of lens elements. Or can add a layer of white residue. Depends on what glue you pick.)
Much to our shock, the lens works perfectly fine after our homemade repair; at least it has so far."

That makes is sound like no parts were issued, and that the only costs associated with repair were time and glue.

And sure one could argue that the time shouldn't have been spent because the thing shouldn't have failed at all, but again we don't know why it failed. If for example they had negative margin in the design, that would clearly be an engineering failure (not understanding the load case or not designing a proper joint for it). But it could have failed due to improper processing of the adhesive, or counterfeit adhesive, etc. I don't know. Do you?


Could the design be more robust? Sure, but that doesn't make it bad. In engineering, better is the enemy of good enough. If this is a commonly recurring failure, it's a bad design. If this is a one- or two-off, then maybe it's an adequate aka "good enough" design.

Regarding the broken lens pictured: cool, I didn't know they had crumple zones. Bad example.

Posting a picture of a heavily used L lens that obviously had a hard knock on it, or worse, really don't prove anything other than the fact that you abuse your lenses, and obviously are going to need anything not Sony

While it's true that I have been known to fall while holding my gear, that picture isn't mine and wasn't meant to prove anything. It was meant to suggest that something failing doesn't necessarily equate to a design flaw (it was a bad example because, per PBD, that was the intended behavior). Design flaws certainly can lead to failure, but failure can be traced to a host of other things, and without knowing what caused what, it's improper to point fingers at engineering. That's all I'm getting at.

 

[Don Haines]

The use of glue is not necessarily bad.... it all depends on the design and the type of glue used.

There are thousands of different glues with different properties, and with the appropriate glue, things CAN be disassembled. For example, there is a line of specialty glues, sold under the brand name Loctite, which is specifically designed for items that will probably get disassembled at some point.....

 

[msm]

Got my GM lenses yesterday. Just want to share few test shots around the house. These were shot with A7r II + 85mm GM, wide open @ f1.4, AF-C mode(same as Ai Servo in Canon 1dx mode).

https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-4-09-Sony-FE-85-f14/

It reminds me my all time favorite Canon 85mm f1.2. The GM 24-70 is very-very good compared to Canon 24-70 II. My 2cents, it might even slightly better than Canon 24-70 II in cropping.


Edit:
Quick update guys, BAD NEWS.

My 85GM has some kind of scratchy/grinding noise when AF is activated. With my phone flashlight, I saw these scratches inside my 85GM. I'm not sure if this is production or design issue, but the lens will be returned to BH on Monday.

According to Roger Cicala this lens has a big motor and is expected to be noisy unlike other Sony lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57580668

Feel like this is more than just loud motor noise. The rubbing marks inside the lens is what I'm concern about. Will give it another try before drawing my conclusion.

And lens rentals has done a teardown this seems to be nothing but a great lens with a somewhat noisy focus motor which caused a silly internet hysteria:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gmaster-emergency-tear-down/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-g-master-lens-mtf-and-variance/

 

[Dylan777]

Got my GM lenses yesterday. Just want to share few test shots around the house. These were shot with A7r II + 85mm GM, wide open @ f1.4, AF-C mode(same as Ai Servo in Canon 1dx mode).

https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-4-09-Sony-FE-85-f14/

It reminds me my all time favorite Canon 85mm f1.2. The GM 24-70 is very-very good compared to Canon 24-70 II. My 2cents, it might even slightly better than Canon 24-70 II in cropping.


Edit:
Quick update guys, BAD NEWS.

My 85GM has some kind of scratchy/grinding noise when AF is activated. With my phone flashlight, I saw these scratches inside my 85GM. I'm not sure if this is production or design issue, but the lens will be returned to BH on Monday.

According to Roger Cicala this lens has a big motor and is expected to be noisy unlike other Sony lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57580668

Feel like this is more than just loud motor noise. The rubbing marks inside the lens is what I'm concern about. Will give it another try before drawing my conclusion.

And lens rentals has done a teardown this seems to be nothing but a great lens with a somewhat noisy focus motor which caused a silly internet hysteria:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gmaster-emergency-tear-down/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-g-master-lens-mtf-and-variance/

Thanks for the links. Excellent job by Lensrental team.

Learning something new everyday in life

 

[3kramd5]

I was just going to post that. Good news.

 

[d]

Roger saves the day, and throws in some poetry to boot:

"Or it may smooth out over time to a beautiful, lustrous sheen that makes your bokeh glow like a sunrise in Yosemite."


Cheers,
d.

 

[Dylan777]

Another shot today with GM 85mm @ f1.4

https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-4-09-Sony-FE-85-f14/i-Wzt3hcC/A