another thing, USB docking doodads that help you tweak lenses. good/bad?

[arthurking83]

The idea of them.

Curious if people are like me, or even a lot less like me, about them .. ie. just curious, interested and or would adopt the program if it came to a manufacturer of your preferred choice?

That is, you may have a Canikony camera system, but ATM, only Sigma and Tamron have this dock system for tweaking lens parameters and firmwares.
But, if Canikony brought out their own USB connecting lens thingybob .. would you adopt it too?

Do you just accept what the maker sold you and have no interest in making sure the lens focuses johnny-on-the-spot perfect!
Primes are easier, Canon make zooms easier(I reckon Nikon will follow suit soon) .. in camera to tweak focus.
But Sigma and Tamron don't have access to Canikony's proprietary little dark secrets.

So the comment will come fast and furiously that you should stick with manufacturer lenses as they don't have the issues that, like Sigma and Tamron will have .. etc, etc.
Much as I respect that fellow .. I still (respectfully) believe that he may be incorrect with that assessment.

To that I'm expecting some contra discussion, so to be sure that this commentary doesn't enter the discussion, the name .. Nikon! .. comes to mind.
OK .. more specifically Nikon 300PF( diffraction optics thingy-doodle from Nikon) it had major VR issues in the first batch .. lens had to go back to HQ and flash firmware.
Think Nikon! a second time .. bugger .. more specifically 200-500 lenses .. first batches had to be sorted .. I think there was a grumbling from Mongo I heard .. and I'm deaf as a dodo, doornail(whatever that is) and maybe even a dead dodos' doornail .. but I still heard a grumble.

So the comment will come back(persistent that this chap is) Canon don't do Nikon lenses(well they used too but that was wayyy pre USB dock days .. ) .. anyhow Canon don't have issues with lens firmwares (https://www.dpreview.com/news/9219781840/psa-canon-issues-service-notice-for-ef-50mm-f1-4-focus-issue) is the commentators response about to hit the submit button! :D

So .. disregarding the aspect that lenses generally don't require lens firmware updates, Sigma has only done two that I know of. The one I got was simply to tweak the focus ability to make it faster if wanted .. not important apparently and it said so. I remember one other but details are vague .. maybe something to do with their OS on one lens, when used on a new camera or something.
Forgetting the fact that lenses generally don't need tweaking all the time ... basically you may tweak it once, a bit of mucking about really not a PITA. You've probably just got the new lens, and will muck about with it a little anyhow, and get a feel for how it works and stuff like that.. why not connect test focus accuracy ... you've probably done it to the lens .. why not be 100% sure with the dock tweaking thing too?

When I got my Sigma 150-600, first things first was set it onto tripod be ultra sure that it's all stable and stuff .. went to the car pulled out Master Gitzo and went for it. Set up the camera in front of the resolution chart. fired shot at 150 and 600 wide open and f/8
Images shocked me with goodness.. so lens went into big padded case .. work then grabbed me by the scruff and didn't let go much.
Then a short while later had to play with tweaking of the different focus settings. I'm curious like that.
Settled on one I liked and that's it. USB dock used barely two or three times. Lens barely used either tho, but that's a work related issue.


So, now that we've established that Canon can also stuff'em up, even tho this issue is a non important lens type issue .. my major beef would be I now need to take lens to a location I probably don't really want to go too(like the CBD!) and leave lens with people I probably don't really like or trust, not have lens for a while repeat transportation process all over again .. it's not enough that they force you to do it first time! then have to deal with those same recalcitrant people in the store AGAIN! ..

needless to say, had Canon had a lens dock thing too, this could save their 50/1.4 customers all that grief.
There are customers that simply refuse self help and like to go to stores and deal with people and have them do all the work.

I know that some anti USB-Lens dock advocates don't like the prospect of having to go to a store in the big smoke to get stuff fixed .. They(like me) would rather be out in the dusty open space of the good old middle of nowhere, not dealing with recalcitrant saledroids.

So I ask again .. are these lens dock thingies an important consideration for lens purchases .. or for the possibility that one day, coming to a lens near you may, be all this grief for a stupid little item that really isn't all that important .. but still needs to be sorted.

As some will know, they are an important consideration for me now.
Strangely the issue now is that it's not so much for the dock thingie itself. I think from my end it's now a bit of a protest to those makers not offering the option.
Remember, the lens dock is not a required accessory, it's an optional one. Don't want .. do as they did on the ark .. two by two style, the olden days ways .. walk it in.
Alternatively when it goes balls up .. u have the dock, you download the firmware in a second or two as it's only 1Mb or less(I think) .. and it's done .. no arks, not droids, no CBDs to worry about .. etc. etc. :D

curious.

[Tannin]

Great topic!

AGAINST

If manufacturers can be bothered doing proper quality control in the first place, docks aren't necessary. All they do is encourage manufacturers to put mal-adjusted products out and leave it to the poor bloody customer to fix them. And they have the hide to charge you money for the tools. This is part of a nasty worldwide trend to outsource all costs of doing business onto customers. Consider your power or telephone company: they go to extreme lengths to put you off ringing them when something is wrong with the product they sold you, and when you do ring up, they are too greedy to pay a receptionist to answer the phone, they make you waste 15 minutes of your own time navigating menus because it saves them having to do the job you pay them for. With photographic gear, I'm perfectly happy paying a first-class manufacturer with excellent quality control to get it right the first time. This is particularly the case because I spend a lot of time in the deep outback where you are completely screwed if something isn't put together right.

FOR

But what if something does go wrong? What if it is something you could fix yourself with a $100 tool and a spare afternoon? Wouldn't you rather do that then mess about sending it off and hoping the post office doesn't lose it and waiting ages for it to come back? I would.

Secondly, while we have every right to expect Canon and Nikon to get it right every time (with their extensive in-house knowledge of their own products, their ability to modify Product A to be compatible with Product B if it seems necessary, and of course their premium pricing with (one assumes) extra ability to pay for comprehensive testing), it is another thing entirely to expect a third-party manufacturer to do all that and do it with three or four or five different mounts and systems, and do it without access to proprietary camera manufacturer knowledge. A company like Sigma not only has to design (say) a nice new 24-70 and fit it to all the Nikon systems, it has to do the same with Canon systems, and possibly one or two others as well, and cope with new camera bodies that haven't even been designed yet and won't take third-party lenses into consideration when they are. That's a big ask!

CONCLUSION

I am torn both ways. I think the for case and the against case are both strong. Either one taken in isolation is compelling - but taken together, they just leave me confused.

For me, there is no practical issue. All of the lenses I have owned are either Canon ones (which don't need a dock and work right straight out of the box) or Tokinas (which in theory might benefit from a dock given the arguments in the "for" case, but in practice - so far so good! - don't seem to). I admit that I do tend to shy away from Tamrons on QC grounds, and to a lesser extent Sigmas. My belief is that Tokina is a bit like Subaru - they don't make much (nothing remotely like the range of a Sigma or a Tamron) but what they do make is over-engineered to the point of being stodgy, and trustworthy on that account. I would happily consider a Sigma lens or even a Tamron ... but dock or no dock, I'd want to be buying it through the official Australian importer so as to have local service and warranty - at which point I'm paying the same price for the Sigma 24-70 that I could buy the Canon one for in Hong Kong, so I might as well just get the Canon.

[J.davis]

I have the dock and my two main lenses both calibrated with it - Sigma 150-600 C and 24 - 105 A. If I feel a need to recalibrate over the years
I can. The reason for the dock in the first place was the camera body can only adjust one setting and I want it all.

[arthurking83]

.... With photographic gear, I'm perfectly happy paying a first-class manufacturer with excellent quality control to get it right the first time. ....

In terms of allowances for the 0.0001 mm discrepancies require to allow easy fitment .. this is nigh on impossible. If the disparate devices are to be easy to fit and need to account for wear over time, built in allowances will always be an issue.
In terms of build quality .. the sky then needs to be the only limit as to what it's going to cost(to build) and obviously sell .. think Zeiss/Lieca etc.
Actually think of it as the difference between NASA putting people into space with equipment they build where tolerances need to be spot on .. or if they got Yongnuo to build the this NASA hyper-titanium space pod that connected too the space drive to get those folks into space.

Nasa has the money to spend billions .. Yongnuo will find ways to cut costs to make money on the project.

Disregarding mirrorless systems, DLSRs have to focus using the additional focus module. If that is out by an estimated 0.001mm to where it's supposed to be, you get misfocus on a lens.

It's common knowledge that many cameras focus slightly differently due to these allowed tolerances .. add the allowable tolerance between camera and lens, and the tolerance numbers add up quickly.

You can see that adding one tolerance value to another is leading to possible focus issues somewhere down the line.
Spot on, ridgy didge, true blue manufacturing can only do so much .. but some of it HAS to be there due to the modular nature of the systems we prefer..
Take mirrorless and the entire premise is eliminated(PDAF on sensor!)

But, we haven't yet taken into account the possibility that over time gear gets a knock here and a whack there .. and those knocks all add up to move bits out of whack.
Bodies may have 0.0005mm of focus module misalignment at some point in the years ahead .. lenses will have 0.00001mm of misaligned lens elements over time too.

if you don't follow LensRental's ongoing blog I suggest you check it out.
Roger is a major fan of Sony(mostly) and Canon(recently).
Canon have been doing good things recently re lens realignment systems, making it easier for non Canon experts to realign lenses to better than new performance.
Sony has many plastic parts contained within, but on the whole their lens adjustment systems are faves of his, being simple to work on.
Nikon just make things sturdy but true to Nikon style .. hard to work on for non Nikon service folk.

So my thinking is more along the lines .. if I knock my large Sigma .. and it now focuses a little out of whack .. can I tinker to make it not out of whack. If not, then do I have to take it to the service centre. .. etc.

For a bit more clarity: my trusty little most hevily used Sigma 10-20 lens has taken it's fair share of knocks. Being an UWA it's not obvious. But for sure a lens realignment is necessary as it's out of whack .. tilted lens, decentering or whatever it is .. it's only when I try a pano and find that one side is crystal clear, but the other side(of the image) is blurred like an 85/1.2's bokeh! .. and this is all at infinity.
So the poor little Sigma needs TLC, or is that SLA :D
The 12-24 took over as UWA of choice tho and I haven't even touched the 10-20 other than moving it once to dust of the shelf it sits on.
But I'm going to do it one day .. not for the sake of usage but for the sake of TLC ;)

I'm still a bit sceptical of IS elements they move, do they move properly all the time? is it going to park properly every time. Do I need to worry about it .. etc.

I'm thinking that your concern about Tamron and Sigma may no longer be valid. Maybe many moons ago when they may have made less durable looking products.
But the 24-70 Tammy is quite solid... Plastic! but still quite solid. I used to worry about some things being plastic, but when you see what parts in trucks ar emade of engineered plastics it helps you sleep at night.
Kev will hopefully chime in to back that statement up .. I remember the 70-200USM lens felt metal like. I'm sure it's plastic but felt very strong.
With Sigma Art and Sport products think all metal .. cold hard metal. To me they feel no more solid that Tamrons plastics.
Personally in varied heat I prefer well engineered plastics .. for the thermal transfer properties.
Sigma 150-600 Sport is one huge ##### of a lens. All metal rock solid build.
I also have Tamrons really old all cast iron 300/2.8 lens to(still). Feels more solid(to me) than Nikon's old bluestone lumps of 300/2.8 tho, I cam close to getting an old Ais version.
Sigma 150-600 to me .. feels more solid than both.

Nikons 105VR OTOH feels cheaply made., Focus ring is simply crap. No fluidity, lens hood is worse than Chinese made tissue products for the same purpose. How Nikon got away with that lens hood is a mystery. Doesn't sit at all on my 105VR now.

In terms of lens-body tolerance, I've yet to find any lens with more slack than the all metal solid as a fort Nikon 50/1.2 lens. It mounts well and feels tight in terms of horiszontal/vertical movement, but it has way too much rotational slack for al all metal lens.
No other lenses I have show this much play in the mounting lugs.

sorry for the long reply, but just some of my observations over time.