Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,

did anyone noticed a lack of quality with the newer Fujifilm XF lenses, too? I have 4 older lenses which have engraved serial number and are said to be manufactured in Japan and they are all excellent build quality with no issues at all. The two newer lenses I bought this year have a sticker with its serial number on it and are said to be manufactured in China. Both lenses have Quality issues I am currently dealing with and also the Fujifilm Europe Service until now was not able to solve the problems. The XF 18-135 doesnt fit well to the body of my X-E1 and has room while being attached to the body. The Service replied after I sent them the lens that it is within their technical specification. Well, although the X-E1 is not wheather sealed there would probably be an issue if this happens on a X-T1 body, because I assume with a slightly moving lens on a body the wheathersealing is not working properly anymore. The second lens XF 27mm has a big issue with autofocussing because it misses more than half of all shots. This one got exchanged. Surprisingly the new lens has exactly the same issue (also from China). So I am wondering slowly what happened to Fujis excellent lens quality... Anyone recognizing similar issues?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only Chinese lenses should be the 16-50 and the 50-230.

 

The rest of the lenses should be made in Japan.

 

I currently have a X-T1

 

I have a 10-24mm, a 35mm, a 60mm all clearly identified (on the box , body and inside the documents) as being Made in Japan.

 

I also own a 50-230mm clearly identified on the box, body and all the papers as “ made in China”.

 

All Japanese lenses are oft he outmost quality and I have no complaint whatsoever.  I also briefly owned a X-E1 and used the 10-24mm, the 35mm and the 60mm on it without any complaint in looks of the lenses on the camera or functionality.

 

The only complaint I have had, had something to do with the X-E1 camera body and, seen what you are saying, might have been the problem which caused me so much aggravation.

 

When I had that camera, particles on the sensor became a problem very very soon after I bought the  10-24mm ( which made them very visible once closing the aperture past f5,6 !).

 

At the same time though I had taken to use an adapter for old manual lenses so, I thought, this could have been playing a role too.

 

But, if the X-E1 was fitting the bayonet not too well, it is perfectly possible that dust found its way on the sensor.

 

Frankly speaking, Fuji has a very serious operation and nothing AT ALL looks sloppy to me ( but of course this is their own video).

 

But, No, frankly speaking I think that if anything they are built better than most lenses.

 

The Chinese made Fujifilm lens ( 50-230mm) is also, well made. Of course it has a plastic bayonet but I don’t see anything wrong with it.

 

 

 

 

 

for comparison look at the Korean Samyang lens production operation 

 

 

What a difference!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

did anyone noticed a lack of quality with the newer Fujifilm XF lenses, too? I have 4 older lenses which have engraved serial number and are said to be manufactured in Japan and they are all excellent build quality with no issues at all. The two newer lenses I bought this year have a sticker with its serial number on it and are said to be manufactured in China. Both lenses have Quality issues I am currently dealing with and also the Fujifilm Europe Service until now was not able to solve the problems. The XF 18-135 doesnt fit well to the body of my X-E1 and has room while being attached to the body. The Service replied after I sent them the lens that it is within their technical specification. Well, although the X-E1 is not wheather sealed there would probably be an issue if this happens on a X-T1 body, because I assume with a slightly moving lens on a body the wheathersealing is not working properly anymore. The second lens XF 27mm has a big issue with autofocussing because it misses more than half of all shots. This one got exchanged. Surprisingly the new lens has exactly the same issue (also from China). So I am wondering slowly what happened to Fujis excellent lens quality... Anyone recognizing similar issues?

 

Can you include some photos to show these? It will help a lot.

 

So far, my only 2 issue is with the XF18 F2 lens. Dust in the lens even after cleaning and I suspect it's coming from inside the lens. There is at least one article which suggest they are metal filings coming from inside the lens itself.

 

The other thing is that the metal grooves on the focusing/zoom ring is a dust magnet. They act exactly like a metal file for your dead skin.....but this is a design problem not quality issue.

 

Other than these, the XF lenses are superbly built.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, someone else has complained about having to clean his sensor very often and says he’s found metal particles ( shavings) on his sensor.

 

 


Just had to remove a lot of particles, including more that look like tiny pieces of metal swarf, after an outing yesterday in which I swapped between two lenses half a dozen times.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

interesting, someone else has complained about having to clean his sensor very often and says he’s found metal particles ( shavings) on his sensor.

 

 

 

 

The whitish fiber like dust appeared less than a month after I acquired the XF18. It progressed to highly visible dust even to the naked eye. I took it to Fujifilm, no comments but they cleaned it for me. However, the dust came back in no time. I left it as it is as I don't use the 18 very often. It's my least favorite lens from Fujifilm.

 

Here's a shot before I sent it to Fujifilm. I don't even want to show the torch through the lens pic as it garnered many unwarranted comments the last time I posted it.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

did anyone noticed a lack of quality with the newer Fujifilm XF lenses, too? I have 4 older lenses which have engraved serial number and are said to be manufactured in Japan and they are all excellent build quality with no issues at all. The two newer lenses I bought this year have a sticker with its serial number on it and are said to be manufactured in China. Both lenses have Quality issues I am currently dealing with and also the Fujifilm Europe Service until now was not able to solve the problems. The XF 18-135 doesnt fit well to the body of my X-E1 and has room while being attached to the body. The Service replied after I sent them the lens that it is within their technical specification. Well, although the X-E1 is not wheather sealed there would probably be an issue if this happens on a X-T1 body, because I assume with a slightly moving lens on a body the wheathersealing is not working properly anymore. The second lens XF 27mm has a big issue with autofocussing because it misses more than half of all shots. This one got exchanged. Surprisingly the new lens has exactly the same issue (also from China). So I am wondering slowly what happened to Fujis excellent lens quality... Anyone recognizing similar issues?

 

It was one of the first things that made me question the (initial?) Fuji X manufacturing quality. I've had one of the first batch X-Pro1's and XF35mm F1.4's. After a few months there was suddenly a (very significant...) metal particle behind the back lens of the XF35mm. The shop immediately recognized the problem, stated it was out of any doubt a guarantee issue and send the lens back to Fujifilm. And after that, I could only experience that Fuji's service org in my country was inexistent. The shop expected they would immediately replace the lens by a new copy, but they didn't. In fact nothing happened, beside after pushing a bit, sending back the lens in the same state, metal particle still in it. In a second attempt, they wanted to offer me a used (repaired?) lens that was, upon their own claim, only used for demo purposes. This all was feeling very unprofessional, and it took more than two months and a few not very nice discussions with Fuji before the shop itself - ashamed about Fuji's weak response - decided to exchange the lens on their own account as a service.

Case closed, but this experience had made me once very suspicious and I have even been considering to sell off everything I had purchased from Fuji.

 

And a bad experience never comes alone. After that I've had a weird issue with the XF60 F2.4 (front plastic broke off, it's in my eyes a good optical performer but poorly designed lens) and my X-Pro1 (problems with the LCD back panel plastic and with a blocked shutter release button).

 

I must say quite a few people convinced me this were not typical Fuji problems and I finally bought the X-T1. After that I've never had any more issues. I really think that Fuji has suffered from a lot of design and quality issues after starting up the X-pro1 & lens manufacturing. It explains for me why they put that intensive kaizen strategy in place for the first wave of gear - just to save this system's future and credibility in the market.

 

The X-T1 feels to be a much more solid concept - also from a construction point of view - than the X-Pro1. I've used the new XF35mm and my other XF's without any flaw.

 

I know it sounds as a repeat from other posts but after adhering to Nikon for about 30 years, I never had an issue with one Nikkor - not even with those that many classify under the 'plastic age' - the AF-S /G-range. Many AF-D's and older AIS-lenses were built like a tank, to last a lifetime even being used under the most harsh conditions. I'm still using F2's with glass from that era and am still blown away by the optical quality and sharpness these lenses had back in the 70's. A lot of people are making observations about the current lenses that make look the older lens designers like stupid people, but of course they weren't. Old glass is often having a particular look and image feel that puts the present clinical cool pixel race at stake.

 

In many respects - looking at the future life - I've got questions about the very lightweight construction and the lots of firmware in this XF-lens concept. But I suppose this is a typical 2015 product story. Nothing being offered today in such a mass production has been designed to survive many decades. It's nice to watch the Fujifilm manufacturing movies, but any other major vendor can show you the same kind of production process (those movies also exist, btw, for f.i. the Nikkors).

 

In the past, lens manufacturing was REALLY handwork from the start to the end. Precisely that makes me long so much for the old times and I'm not the only one that loves to work with vintage stuff, even roll film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the xf27 is made in China, but it matters not where a product is made, it matters about the QC, and to a greater extent the aftersales support.

 

There are some stories of aperture problems on some XF lenses, namely the electrical contacts that tell the camera what aperture you've twisted the ring too can become detached.

 

I've had 3 xf18s the first I sold BNIB so I cannot comment, the second had the loosest aperture ring of any XF lens I've ever owned (& that's 7) the third has the nicest aperture ring movement of any of my XF lenses.

 

My first XP1 collected so much internal dust, I nicknamed him 'Dyson' (Fuji cleaned it under warranty to be fair) this XP1 also eat its own strap lugs, which Fuji also fixed under warranty

 

My XT1 has so far (15 months) been good as gold, some have complained of peeling grips, bulging doors, but mine has been ok

 

What to make of this...?

 

Well sh*t happens!

 

The biggest complaint is not a problem with the product, but a problem with the customer service... That is the worst thing, and sadly the quality of Fuji service seems to vary dependant upon where you live in the world.

 

Of course if you type "Panasonic/Sony/Pentax/Fuji/Leica/Olypmus/*whatever* problems" into Google you will get a lot of hits, so the problem is not necessarily a Fuji one, but a reflection of the mass production and disposable product nature of the modern world.

 

As I say, manufacturers need to offer decent customer service, because some of us will always find a problem product. For some countries Fuji seem to do this, for others it seems not...

 

...that's the tragedy in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I wonder: should people accept for example a dead/stuck pixel in the back display? I had noticed a stuck one on a X-Pro2 display, and it is so tiny it practically would not bother me a lot. On the other hand I have never accepted displays with pixel defects on any product, also it might influence second hand value. But of course on many other devices or with a computer monitor the sole purpose of the device is to display an image, for the camera the main function is (usually) not displaying, but taking pictures.

 

Does it make sense to complain about it/return it for the sole purpose of getting some attention for this type of issue/notify Fuji they might want to improve QC for their displays. I suppose they are well aware of this kind of issue, as they leave room for this kind of defect in the specifications and manuals of their cameras (as do (afaik) most other camera manufacturers).

Edited by ggsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

conventionally one or two pixels aren’t reason to replace but this might vary from brand to brand.

 

I always check and few years ago I had a Canon G10 which, when I checked revealed several hot or dead pixels. I sent it back to the shop which replaced it for a new copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder: should people accept for example a dead/stuck pixel in the back display? I had noticed a stuck one on a X-Pro2 display, and it is so tiny it practically would not bother me a lot. On the other hand I have never accepted displays with pixel defects on any product, also it might influence second hand value. But of couse on many other devices or with a computer monitor the sole purpose of the device is to display an image, for the camera the main function is (usually) not displaying, but taking pictures.

 

Does it make sense to complain about it/return it for the sole purpose of getting some attention for this type of issue/notify Fuji they might want to improve QC for their displays. I suppose they are well aware of this kind of issue, as they leave room for this kind of defect in the specifications and manuals of their cameras (as do (afaik) most other camera manufacturers).

 

It depends on the manufacturing/quality policies you agreed to unknowingly when you bought it.

 

A lot of display companies states that a minimum number of dead pixel is considered normal.

 

However, depending on cases, they may fix for you out of goodwill. The usual caveat applies, owner bares the postage, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the NL ( and in general EU) your contract is not with the distributor or main company but with the shop, replacements and guarantees are directly dealt by shops.

 

Also, if you study the norms, in most EU countries, you have to right to rescind the sales contract within 15 days and money has to be returned on request, no questions asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

milandro, mandatory rights of return are usually for distance selling in the EU. For most countries in the EU (including the Netherlands), these rights are not obligatory for transactions made in a shop. Nevertheless, it is often possible to return things also when not distance-shopping. The right to a product which conforms to the description, or reasonable expectation is not touched by that of course. I am not sure about the manufacturers' statements a pixel defect in the display is to be expected, for that they are too uncommon and not advertised clearly enough I would argue.

 

With regard to if there is a contract between consumer and manufacturer, besides the contract between consumer and retailer, multiple views exist in, even within, various countries. Sometimes it is argued a warranty by the manufacturer with associated services is an offer to the consumer, who can accept that offer, turning the whole thing into a contract with enforcable obligations.

 

One point why I feel a pixel fault in the display is something to complain about, is the fact this will stimulate manufacturers to improve their process. Besides that, it is annoying to know there is a faulty pixel, even it is (almost) never noticed, and it might influence second-hand value. On the other hand, I feel it is a waste of resources and energy not to use a display with one or two faulty (sub)pixels (but maybe they can be recycled efficiently, I have no idea).

Edited by ggsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

not this is not correct.

 

In the Netherlands we normally have one to two weeks to return any purchase made in a physical shop and up to one month for on line buys. It always says on the proof of purchase.

 

If you buy with paypal you have 180 days now. Similar conditions apply for credit card purchases too.

 

I have bought a hoover wasn’t happy after using it ( could show that suction was not good), brought it back to the shop (a major supermarket), got cash.

 

Brought back my 10-24mm lens to a shop, on the invoice I had one week time to recede my purchase and they gave me another one, they would have given me the money back if I had wanted to.

 

They have to do that, unless it is broken.

 

If it is broken you don’t send the faulty item to the distributor or manufacturer, you have to send it or bring it to the shop where you made your purchase (later identified as TRADER) 

 

Also in recent times the guarantee, in the EU, has ceased being mainly a contract between manufacturer and client but it is directly a contract with the shop (or trader) and the customer.

 

In other words this brings the guarantor closer to the guaranteed. This is the spirit of the new legislation.

 

Because, should the shop fail you then go to the distributor, should that fail to THEN you take it to the factory. In this way the chain of responsibility is always closest to the customer.

 

From the FAQ of the EU own site ( applies to phones OR cameras).

 

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm

 

 

  • My new phone doesn't work. Who do I contact, the trader or the manufacturer?

    That depends on which of the two types of product guarantee you want to invoke: the legal guarantee or the commercial guarantee.

    The legal guarantee is binding on the trader. It is valid for two years and covers products bought in the EU.

    The trader or manufacturer may also provide you with a commercial guarantee, whose terms and conditions are explained in your contract; the terms of the manufacturer's commercial guarantee could present more advantages for you than the legal guarantee. The commercial guarantee does not replace the two-year legal guarantee. If you are given a one-year commercial guarantee when you buy a product, you can still use the two-year legal guarantee to claim redress from the trader after more than one year, but still within two years of purchase, on the basis of your legal guarantee.

  • I bought a phone a little over a year ago, and it has stopped working. The trader refuses to fix it for free. Don't I have a two-year legal guarantee?

    The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions.

    The legal guarantee covers any defects presumed to have existed at the time of delivery and which become apparent within a period of two years. However, the crucial time period here is the six months following purchase:

    • Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible.
    • After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert.
Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

milandro, there is a difference between what is common and what is obligatory. A store does not have to give a right of return to the customer, (in non-distance shopping, in distance shopping they have to), but as you have stated shops often do it nevertheless, and if they offer this, this can of course be enforced. For Dutch law,  the most relevant points are made in articles 1-50 of book 7 and in articles 230g-z of book 6 of the civil law codex, The contract between seller and buyer would be, and always has been, a different one than the one between consumer and manufacturer, (the latter relationship is much less regulated by law) But I think a discussion about these matters would be outside the scope of this thread, anyway everyone should look at his/her own situation/applicable law..

Edited by ggsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

milandro, as far as I see the information you have provided does not in any way contradict what I have written. There is a difference between 'legal warranty' and 'warranty', 'Gewährleistung' and 'Garantie' or '(rechten uit) non-conformiteit' and 'garantie'. (and I would alway advise people to use rights from the former, as they are much better regulated and secure certain consumer protection)

If you review the relevant articles in Dutch law, you will also find that a distinction exists between rights of return in the case of 'distance selling' and 'conventional selling', of course there is freedom for shops to offer more than what they have to to do by law (and never less). I would advise Dutch consumers to not assume they have the right to return stuff they buy in the store (in a conventional one) even if the store does not offer such a right. If you believe you have information proving the contrary, I would very much appreciate the links to the relevant articles in the law.

Maybe an interesting message for the Dutch:

'Hebt u spijt van een aankoop? Mag u het product dan altijd ruilen? Bij veel winkels wel, maar bij andere winkels weer niet. Ruilen is geen recht. Het is een gunst van de verkoper. Dat betekent dat een verkoper niet verplicht is om een product terug te nemen als u het toch niet wilt hebben', which would be in line with what I believe to know.

Edited by ggsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going around in circles.

 

Like I said I have done this many times and Dutch shops are most certainly obliged to replace an item and or return the money within one or two weeks for physical shops and at least 30 days for on line purchase.

 

I am goin on holiday in a few hours and you will forgive me If I don’t spend time trying to make my point. Feel free to convince your self though you can look up things here.

 

http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-consommateurs/PDFs/PDF_EN/REPORT-_GUARANTEE/tableau_EN_Legal_commercial.pdf

 

If we are not in agreement, so be it.

 

I am not trying to prove you wrong I am trying to inform fellow members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..

 

I am not trying to prove you wrong I am trying to inform fellow members.

I respect that, I am just trying to warn fellow members to make sure they are not misinformed. People should make sure they know what is true for their own situation, for the Dutch: it is certainly not the case that you always have a right of return (as you can find in law and for example on the government-approved website I had linked in my previous post). There are situations where there is a legal right of return, and situation where the retailer grants a right of return (possibly with certain restraints).

 

Also people need to be aware of the distinction between non conformity/legal warranty/gewährleistung and additional possible contracts and rights between various parties. If the retailer does not exist anymore (insolvent&liquidated for example), it can be very handy to have a (legally enforcable) right granted by a manufacturer.

 

Edit: I do not want to add more posts to this discussion, as it is plainly offtopic in this thread, but I just want to emphasise once more that everyone, the Dutch specifically, should not believe any factual claims made in this thread, and make up their own mind or seek more counsel if they cannot. Most of the sources suggested in the posts are intereting for people with interest in this matter, for quick information i would suggest especially the civil law itself (book 7, book 6), but also Consuwijzer for information in layman's terms.

Edited by ggsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that in the Netherlands we have all the rights that I’ve mentioned.

 

On top of this, in reality we also have a theoretical guarantee against fabrication defect which extends throughout the “useful” life of every object, way beyhond the minimum EU two years guarantee ( which has some exceptions like for example in the UK).

 

 

Anyway this is getting a tedious exercise and after all  our fellow members aren’t stupid and can read the material which I’ve provided and convince themselves of whatever they read in there.

 

If you want to navigate through the legal terms on the Netherlands, please be my guest

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/?qid=1444920189744&uri=CELEX:31999L0044

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to LCD screens, there are ISO standards. Normally, every manufacturer tries to give 0 dead pixels but if you want to create a case, there are policies.

 

A bit old but still holds water.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_13406-2

 

http://www.tested.com/tech/1337-we-uncover-the-dead-pixel-policies-for-every-major-lcd-maker/

 

You can of course, challenge them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Lens Metal Shavings/specks!!

 

Interesting timing... So, I just received two brand new Fuji lenses from Adorama. I got them on the May 22nd sale, great prices! I got the 35 f/2 and the 55-200 f3.5 - f4.8

 

I have discovered that BOTH lenses have tiny metal shavings in the internal glass elements. How do I know they are metal? They reflect the light of my LED flashlight, and it is a rather bright reflection! The 35 f/2 has a rather big one. I can even see it without a flashlight when pointing to a white surface. The 55-200 has 4 such metal shavings but smaller. And they are waaaaay deep in the middle glass elements. Again, they are reflective. Think about it like bright stars on the sky, when using the flashlight. 

 

I was rather disappointed to say the least, as i always consider Fuji glass and quality top notch! I could not believe it. I thought to check  my older 18-55 lens and see if that one has metal specks in there. And guess what... it does... way more. Something like 5 or 6 small ones.The two lenses are going back to Adorama for exchange.

 

Will these metal shavings cause an issue? I really don't know nor I have the patience to uber-pixel-peep trying to find for ghost shadows and dark spots in the pictures. And since they are reflective instead of dust, I don't know if they will cause further screw ups in bright daylight. But, if I am paying for new lenses, I demand to be dust free. And what is up with the metal shavings?? I am reading people are finding them on their sensor. This is not OK!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rather unusual. I have 5 XF lenses and only the 18 has had problems with "metal" shavings in it.

 

I never really tested it to see if it was really metal but under my lab light they looks "whitish".

 

The other lenses were very clean when I got them new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was unusual as well. Not my first time checking lenses, as I have been a Nikon user for a long time and I like some of the older AIS and E series Nikkors. My replacements are coming in tomorrow. I hope these will be OK.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...