Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 7, 2010, 11:35 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default Lense Failure Stats - Some Surprises

I was reading about SDM failures on other sites and the debate went in the direction of failures from other manufacturers.

This was taken from the Lens Rentals site, no Pentax lenses (as they don't stock them for lease) but some Sigmas and Tamrons.

_______________________________

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010...repair-data-40

THE FOLLOWING LENSES HAD FAILURE RATES AT LEAST DOUBLE THE MEDIAN RATE (5.5%)

Lens Annualized Repair Rate Typical Problems
Sony 24-70 f/2.8 ZA 30% Decentered, calibration, autofocus
Sony 70-200 f/2.8 APO 28.5% Autofocus, manual focus
Canon 18-200 IS 23% Zoom sticking, IS failure, aperture stuck
Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR 22% VR failure, autofocus failure
Nikon 50 f/1.4 AF-S G 22% AF, calibration, decentering
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II 21% Zoom sticks, VR failure, AF failure
Nikon 24mm f/3.5 PC-E 20% Loose mechanism
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 17% Zoom sticks
Sigma 50-500 OS 18% AF failure
Tokina 12-24 f/4 PRO 14% Zoom sticks, calibration
Canon 35mm f/1.4 14% Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II 13.75% Zoom sticks or catches, IS failure
Canon 100-400 IS L 13.75% IS problems, zoom sticking, calibration
Canon 28-300 IS L 12.5% Zoom sticks, autofocus
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS 12% Manual focus, autofocus, IS failure
Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR 12% Zoom sticks
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 11% Calibration, zoom jammed
Canon 50 f/1.2 L 11% Calibration, autofocus
Nikon 80-400 VR 11% Zoom sticks, VR failure, autofocus sticks
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 11% Autofocus, calibration

Lenses proven so unreliable that we’ve stopped carrying them. The following three lenses have been discontinued for this reason:
Sigma 150-500 OS
Sigma 120-400 OS
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

Fanboys love to misuse the list above, and one of the common things I’ve seen is,“Brand X has the most (or least) lenses on Lensrentals’ high repair rate list.” Let’s keep it in perspective. There were 41 Canon, 37 Nikon, 14 Sigma, 13 Zeiss, 7 Sony, 5 Tamron, and 3 Tokina lenses (120 total) eligible to make the list. The final makeup was 7 Canon, 6 Nikon, 2 Sony, 2 Tokina and 1 Sigma lenses. Every brand seems to have some troubled and some trouble free lenses.

This is the first time period during which we’ve had enough data to show Sony lenses in this report. They definitely represented once given the opportunity, but the sample size is relatively small (for example we have 12 to 15 copies of most Sony lenses compared to over 100 copies of similar Canon and 50 copies of similar Nikon lenses), so a few repairs made a relatively high number. Then again, when 1/3 of all the copies fail, it makes you take notice.

I would also add, for those who haven’t experienced an out-of-warranty repair on a Sony lens, the price will make you spit out your morning coffee. If you want to know how much higher, let’s just say it’s in proportion to the cost of a Sony lens hood compared to a Canon Lens hood. Alpha has some of the best lenses around, but say your nightly prayers that they don’t break.

It seems likely that manufacturers quietly correct problems with subassemblies in various lenses. We’ve seen some circumstantial evidence of that with this year’s data. Several lenses that have had high repair rates for the last couple of years are suddenly absent. Not just absent, but they’ve gone from high repair rate lenses to very low repair rate lenses.

Lens 4.0 (2010) 3.5 (2009) Repair 3.0 (2008-9) 2.0 (2008)
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS 7.7% 29% 25% 20%
Canon 10-22 EFS 3% 9% 17.5% 16%
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 5% 14% NA NA
Canon 35 f/1.4 14% 10% 22% 9%
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 11% 20% 10% 19%
Canon 100-400 14% 16% 11% 12%

__________________________

I would suggest popping over and reading the report in full, in light of the issues surrounding SDM lenses it makes interesting reading.

___________________________

These are the stats from a serious amount of users on Lensplay


http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_defects2.php

Survey Results

Canon lenses - 13134 with 1001 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 92 %
The probability of getting 5 Canon lenses in a row is 67 %

Sigma lenses - 2974 with 668 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 78 %
The probability of getting 5 good Sigma lenses in a row is 28 %

Tamron lenses - 1476 with 217 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 85 %
The probability of getting 5 good Tamron lenses in a row is 45 %

Tokina lenses - 496 with 81 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 84 %
The probability of getting 5 good Tokina lenses in a row is 41 %

Nikon lenses - 2417 with 199 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 92 %
The probability of getting 5 good Nikon lenses in a row is 65 %

Pentax lenses - 1539 with 99 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 94 %
The probability of getting 5 good Pentax lenses in a row is 72 %

Minolta/Konica/Sony lenses - 654 with 61 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 91 %
The probability of getting 5 good Minolta/Sony lenses in a row is 61 %

Other lenses - 959 with 97 defects
The probability of getting a good lens is 90 %
The probability of getting 5 good Other lenses in a row is 59 %
_________________________________

Despite the SDM failures Pentax lenses seem to be the most reliable though the difference to Canon could be within statistical variation limits - especially considering the smaller sample of Pentax lense users in comparison.

All very interesting, but I have to say I am shocked at how often these expensive consumer objects fail, across the board regardless of manufacturer it seems !
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC

Last edited by Frogfish; Dec 7, 2010 at 11:38 PM.
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 8, 2010, 4:50 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

The numbers are rather high, but I guess that renting out lenses does have a negative influence on the lifetime of a lens.

Nice to have a look at other brands and see that all are almost the same in quality.
__________________
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 5:03 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhermans View Post
The numbers are rather high, but I guess that renting out lenses does have a negative influence on the lifetime of a lens.

Nice to have a look at other brands and see that all are almost the same in quality.
The second set of numbers are not from leased lenses Ronny !
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2010, 6:40 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

Be sure and not mistake lens "Failure" with lens "Damage"...

Example:

"The Nikon 70-300 VR, which has always been a trouble free lens, suddenly
appears on the list almost entirely from electrical problems. It reminds me of
a similar phenomenon we saw last year with Canon 300 f/4 IS lenses, where
a number of copies bought at roughly the same time had a very high problem
rate. A batch of bad circuit boards, perhaps? If so, the problems will disappear
with our next batch of lenses."

Few (if any) of the listed reasons for failure are of the type that would come from
miss use or mishandling...

Lensrentals has a wealth of valuable data and insights, taken in a semi controled
environment, that are invaluable to those willing to take the time to read/digest
it all... Few reviewers/sites have access to such shear quantities of individual models
and/or brands to be able to collect such data... Except for, of course, the manufacturers
who are highly unlikely to publicize failure rates of their products...

I highly urge EVERYONE to read the many articles that can found at the Lensrentals
site...

JMHO...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Dec 8, 2010 at 6:42 AM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.