< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII thread issue: “that is normal”

UPDATE: I received a word that Nikon is looking into this issue and will have an official statement soon. Let's wait and see.

Here is the translated response from Nikon Beijing Service Center dated 01/11 regarding the previously reported 70-200 f/2.8 thread issue (source: xitek).

"Failures Observed: lens thread defect at 200mm (the customer believes either thread or its coating peeling off). Inspection requested.

Maintenance Performed: After inspection, thread of the lens submitted indeed has certain peeling. However, that is normal when the surface of that metal was manufactured. There, the alleged problem will not affect the len’s performance, rigidness, or function."

If Nikon USA has an official statement on this issue, I would be happy to publish it here.

Thanks longtimenikonshooter for the update!

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Martin

    I say “BULL$h!t”

    A $2000 lens…give me a break. That thing should be flawless

    BTW, first to post!!!!

  • Ed

    You know what? I guess the people that inspected have a point, if it isn’t affecting your lens……. if the lens isn’t affecting your photos….. maybe it doens’t need a repair??? But I don’t have this lens yet and I DO share this concern of the flakiness of the lens insides.

    However I do wish to comment the flakiness, is the material plastic? Oily? Or is it metal burrs from lathing metal tubes to make the 70-200mm VR2? If it’s metal, it’s going to be that way and will be VERY hard to break off.

    • Anony-mou

      Well guess what, whatever point they have that it doesn’t need a repair, if I were a prospective buyer I would certainly wait until Nikon fixes this issue before buying it. If they don’t fix it then I would just not buy it. Most people think that way, and Nikon understands that, so they will fix it.

  • getanalogue

    now it has ended….farewell Nikon…..we are singing you the swansong…..too much ignorance and arrogance….any Tokina is better than any Nikon glass.
    Happy to have my old F4 and old 20-35, and some Zeiss plus Contax 645 plus Zeiss lenses….forget all this Japanese sh.t. They are just cheating us. Buy the last Hasselblad scanners and shoot MF film. I am afraid, KR is totally right. This info is the peak of everything bad I ever heard about cutomer care & service.

    • GlobalGuy

      I will stick with Nikon for now. There is one thing when the lens comes with DUST inside ON THE GLASS. It is another if there is metalic/rubber/plastic debris coming off the lens itself. In the former case, its a matter of exchanging your lens for a clean one. In the latter case, NIKON needs to respond.

      So far there has been NO PROOF that the dust inside a lens is caused by debris. We only have reports that the manufactured metals are not perfectly smooth and have edges to them. If there is proof that this debris comes off (and is not a permanent manufactured inelegance held tightly in place) then NIKON needs to respond. There is not that proof yet. And NIKON USA has not issued an official statement that I know of. I do not trust NIKON China and I don’t know if NIKON Europe has had any say. But let’s wait for statements from subsidiaries in regions that have strong consumer protection laws.

      If there is some proof of error, then NIKON must quite simply take responsibility. If not, then some people will start looking to SONY or worse.

      Manufacturing of a lens over $1,500 should be nearly perfect. And any one of us would pay $50 dollars more simply to have our lenses inspected fully by an quality control expert/highly trained eye at that price level. Call it jobs creation, Nikon…

      • GlobalGuy

        By the way, my copy does NOT have this issue. And I want to say this because usually you will only hear from the people that have problems or are worried about something.

        • dB

          Thanks for posting this…

          I’m debating exchanging my lens, but if every single lens has this issue, there is no point. I wonder what the real % is

        • fxed

          If your copy is without DAMAGE fine, you lucked out. My copy and from reading other owners experiences, there is a issue. This is not an isolated incident. The amount of debris and chipping in my lens is flat out unacceptable. If it can be repaired, which I doubt, it’s for me to decide whether to send it in or send a bill.

          I intend to use my lens to it’s fullest while waiting for Nikon to reply. “A house divided cannot stand”

          • LGo

            My copy, as well as those of my brother do not exhibit the “problems” described in this thread.

        • jay

          If your copy does not have problem, could you post a closeup photo of it? Also, how many shots you have used it for?

      • Bob from Ohio

        I agree…. that is a HORRIBLE response and it reflects horribly on Nikon.

        I just bought a Canon 7D and a BUNCH of top glass, and I took it back so that I could get Nikon gear. Now I am wondering if I did the right thing.

        Nikon is afraid of a recall right now, that’s all. And it’s BAD BUSINESS!!

        Bob

    • http://www.hayphoto.ca HayPhoto

      I love my Tokina f/2.8s, they are so nice and rugged.

      • Anonymous

        tokina sucks compared to nikon regardelss of this “problem”

        • http://micahmedia.com Micah

          I love my 11-16 and it blows the doors off the Nikkor 10-24 and 12-24. And it even works wonderfully at 16mm on my D700.

          I’ve also shot with a 300/2.8 AF Tokina. Built like a tank and extremely sharp. Only reason I haven’t bought one is lack of image stabilization. Other than that, Tokina makes some good stuff. It’s not all great, but even Nikon has it’s dogs.

          Can you show us a ultra-wide for APS-C that is sharper than 11-16? I mean full images or crops at 100% from center/corner?

          Blanket statements like X brand sucks are really pretty pointless.

          I can say there are reasons I prefer Nikon over Canon. But I’d never generally say Canon/Sony/Pentax/Tokina/Tamron/Sigma/Olympus suck. I can say they all have their weaknesses and strengths.

          Can you qualify why Tokina “sucks”?

  • http://www.blankmediagroup.com A Ball

    well if its a cast piece then it is understandable that it has some pitting. but i doubt they are cast. Anodizing doesnt, come off, not by peeling. i think someone should scrap theirs and see if the “coating” comes off. if it doesnt then it is just a defect in the metal and likely not a problem. unless the threads start coming apart and pieces break off. but with not stress on it i doubt that would happen.

  • etienne69

    ” Nikon Beijing Service Center ”
    So now we know that Nikon delocalised every departement in China.
    We will get the same $ – store quality for a 150$ lens than a 2000$ lens.
    Even for 150$ this is not admissible.

    • WTF

      What the f*ck are you talking about? Don’t care about quality? Do you know how many people complaining here are Chinese?

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

        ok, I had to do some editing here, please do not offend other readers or nations

  • another anonymous

    huh and i wanted to replace my old version.. at the moment i’m glad i didn’t, but will carefully observe how the issue will continue. if it will end by some acceptable solution then i’ll buy it. otherwise i’ll stay by the old one. hawk

  • http://www.blankmediagroup.com A Ball

    what it seems is a bunch of photographers who have no idea what they are talking about. complaining about some stupid little thing they noticed on thier lens. quess what, chances are it is no big deal. Most of you know jack about metals or the manufacturing process (apologies to those who do actually know) like i said, if this is a powder coating and its peeling off maybe it can cause problems. although even if it does come off its unlikely to have an effect. the elements are likely sealed and not just open for outside debris to fall into the inner workings of the lens and effect image quality. If its anodized and just irregularities in the coating then its nothing to worry about and if its just cast(unlikely) then there is certainly nothing to worry about. what the lines look like are tooling marks from the lathes they use. it appears that maybe the metal used was just crap quality, probably recycled scrap. melted back down and pressed into rod stock. this would cause pits in the aluminum. and this would look just light that. cause even after the tooling the pits would be visible. then they coat it and not much changes. just sort of covers it up. that seems like the most likely case. If they were coating, them and the coating was not adhering to the metal surface there would be other problems and the coaitng would peel off in larger sections.

    • GlobalGuy

      Exactly, one thing that many people are confusing are TWO SEPARATE issues:

      – Dusty lenses
      – “Irregularity” in the metal working/coating.

      Irregularities in the shape or form of non-moving parts does not imply defect. It simply is not as beautiful on the inside as the outside. However if DEBRIS is generated from these irregularities, that may be cause for concern — but there is absolutely no proof of debris as of yet. Wait and see if anyone can show the existence of actual debris (small chunky pieces of metal/plastic or rubber).

      Dust on the other hand are just tiny dust particles when some careless (or EXTREMELY RUSHED perhaps) factory worker sealed in a lens before cleaning it out with inspection. Exchange it if its too dusty for you early on. Over time your own dust will find its way in. And most people know this has virtually no effect on image quality and almost always there is more dust on the front end and back end of the lens just out of sheer use than ever finds its way inside the lens.

    • jay

      You are the one doesn’t know what you are talking about. This is NOT irregularity, these are massive damages, something horrible looking. I take it you don’t have the lens or your doesn’t have the problem. If you have seen this in person, you wouldn’t make such comment.

      • Anonymous

        yeah and i bet you won’t buy a used camera or lens if it doesn’t come with the original boxes?

    • http://ml.cs.colorado.edu/~ben/gallery fugue137

      That’s fine if they offer a lifetime warranty. Until then, I’d say it’s reasonable to get them to fix anything that looks to me like it might be a problem in 10 years.

    • jacob

      So if you bought a new car and the headliner was marked and frayed it wouldnt be a problem? How about if there was a jelly bean rolling around inside? It wont hurt perfomrance!

  • http://www.hexagonstudios.com Rob Bannister

    I cant believe this. I was actually trying to save up for this lens, now I want nothing to do with it. Seems like nothing more then a headache to me. I was also waiting on a new 24-70 but I should go pick one of these up before Nikon ruins that lens too.

  • JW

    Does it affect your photos? No. Will it affect your photos? If they are casting or machining marks in metal then no. Maybe Nikon knows this – have some faith in their conclusions. Here’s an idea – put your inspection flashlight away and go and take some pictures!

    • fxed

      You don’t have the lens so why don’t you STFU.

  • akenathon

    my whole family works in the fine art metal industry & there’s no way to leave such a mistake on a fine piece of work. Even more on a 2000$ lens factured with very fine machines.
    this is a lack of professionalism & total lazyness of the worker in charge of finishing or checking the lens.

    • http://www.blankmediagroup.com A Ball

      True, a quality control issue this is. it shouldn’t be there. but it doesnt affect the lenses function in any way. my family too is in the metal industry. owning and operating an antique hardware reproduction business for 60 years. Its just Galling, basically some aluminum got stuck on the tooling and that with a combination of crappy metal, created this. Its nothing to worry about. Nikon is right, it has no affect on the lens. I am sure future ones will not have this problem but figure they make several thousand of these pieces at a time. so it might be several months till all the copies with this are sold. Also remember yeah it looks bad but the company might have manufactured 500,000 lenses and if they all had this problem it would cost millions to remake the parts and have them all re-done. infact the lens wouldnt be out yet if that were the case. This wont affect how your lens works at all. it wont chip off.

      So shut up and shoot.

      • JohnGG

        Would you ever preorder a Nikon item again? Not me anyway!
        PS
        BTW you shut up and go shoot A Ball. Are you a Nikon employee, or what?

      • Hugo

        Even if this issue will not affect the photos (but who can tell for the future?) – I really can tell you something for the future: When the day comes that you want to resell the lens in order to get new gear, you’ll be shocked about the loss in value. Put this crap on eBay and see what happens. That is an issue.

      • aetas

        I will admit up front. I do not have this lens. I was thinking about it being one of my next buys though. From the looks of the photos of this thread it seems as though it would be a problem. What happens if any of this thread material comes off and gets on to the lens. I think nikon should deal with the problem lenses. For the money asked I agree with some of the other posts, they should damn near be perfect.

      • fxed

        A Ball, You don’t have the lens so why don’t you butt out of this.

        It is hard to imagine someone actively seeking to stiffle conversation that is alerting the OWNERS, PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PAID $2400 to shut up. You have some freaking nerve.

        • http://www.blankmediagroup.com A Ball

          i dont personally own the lens but my business does. I also worked as a metal worker and know how lenses are built. Ive repaired my own. Im not some worrying moron like the avg photographer who cant figure out how to open a jar of pickles without a DIY tutorial.

          This defect, exists in the copy i use. i tested it last night. there are no problems with the lens, the Galling is exactly that. Galling. i tried to break it apart and it wont. its very rigid. there is nothing to worry about. now perhaps some people have a slightly different issue. but the issue being discussed about the “coating peeling off” is not what it seems and you are all getting your panties in a bunch over nothing. if you are worried about resale value send it to nikon and get a written statement form them stating what i just told you that the lens works perfectly fine and that is a normal occurrence during the manufacturing process.

          No I do not work for Nikon. I have a brain and dont freak out over stupid little things. If you buy a new car and one day you open the hood and find a scratch on the underside of the hood underneath the hood liner do you freak out and return it?

          I assure you there is NO PROBLEM with your lens. its simply tooling marks. no big deal. perhaps it looks ugly. but how long did it take you till you even knew your lens had it? how long did you people own these things before you noticed it. I bet if you look back at some older lenses you might notice similar problems if you can call them that.

          So no sir, you are the one with the nerve. It is people like you that make the customer service of a company go down hill. people calling in loosing their minds over nothing. DEMANDING a new lens or a repair or a refund. They get enough calls like that they will ignore someone with a real issue. remember the story about the boy who cried wolf?

          I am going to stick to facts instead of listening to the nervous trembling of some uneducated weekend shooter.

  • Neil

    I just don’t see the real problem here. I think if you look hard enough you can find manufacturing “effects” everywhere in everything. This is in all likelihood merely a cosmetic issue in a place 95% of people probably wouldn’t think to look. Perfection costs a great deal of money. And if you think the price of this lens demands perfection you should look to two things: the price of optical glass and the exchange rate.

  • low

    okay there you have it folks..inothing to see here, move along….!

  • Anonymous

    Defects appear in a lot of manufaturing processes. Defects don’t add up to disfunction, though, most of the time. If nothing is coming off of the threads, then, no problem. If flakes are coming off, my concern would be that the flakes would cling to the outer lens and/or the inner side of the lens filter. That would be a pain to have to constantly take off, dust, and put back on. If it’s metal flakes, then scratching would be another worry of mine. Unfortunately, I cannot afford such a lens. If anyone is soo disappointed in their new 70-200mm and just can’t stand to keep it with the defects, please let me know and I will gladly provide an address for you to send it to. :)

    • Anonymous

      it is easy to not complain about somehting if you don’t have to pay for it….

      • Anonymous

        I did say if i had one, there would be concern…

  • my2cents

    Defects appear in a lot of manufaturing processes. Defects don’t add up to disfunction, though, most of the time. If nothing is coming off of the threads, then, no problem. If flakes are coming off, my concern would be that the flakes would cling to the outer lens and/or the inner side of the lens filter. That would be a pain to have to constantly take off, dust, and put back on. If it’s metal flakes, then scratching would be another worry of mine. Unfortunately, I cannot afford such a lens. If anyone is soo disappointed in their new 70-200mm and just can’t stand to keep it with the defects, please let me know and I will gladly provide an address for you to send it to. :)

  • Alain2x

    What a nice piece of BS all over.

    Nobody ever saw any effect on image quality, and so many sparrows cry as if they were killed.

    I ignored there were so many optics or mecanical engineers amongst NR readers :)

    • low

      for a brief moment in time, the new 70-200 2.8 VR II started taking crappy images. i knew those images i was looking at within the past few weeks looked waaaaaaaaaay off!! im glad we can go back to thinking our new 70-200 is still king!

      • another anonymous

        i’m wondering how clear is the issue to you all ppl on both sides.. i’ll better wait a bit to make a opinion

      • another anonymous

        i’m wondering how clear is the issue to you all ppl on both sides.. i’ll better wait a bit to make an opinion

  • Ben

    I’ll say this, buying this lens was a really big deal for me. I’m not rich by any means, so spending $2400 on a lens was a big deal. Here’s what I know:

    1. I would have never noticed this if it weren’t for this site (or other neurotic hobbyists) and it is because of the next reason.

    2. The lens simply takes awesome pictures! The lens is working exactly as I had expected. The zoom works flawlessly and the images produced blow me away every time I look at them.

    This lens has a 5 year warranty, right? I imagine if this defect really causes a real problem in the function of the lens, then it will be covered by the warranty. No big deal! In the mean time, I’ll go take some pictures with this incredible lens while everyone else squabbles. :-)

    • Mike

      Great thinking; I hope it breakes down when you’re on a must-do assignement, safari or something, hundreds of miles from the nearest service facility with no extra time on your hand.

      But hey, that’s why warranty is for, right?

      • Ben

        Where is the proof that it is breaking the lens?

        • Mike

          Where is the proof that it doesn’t?

    • C Benson

      The lens might have 5 year warranty but your camera may not be under warranty. Do to the fact the coating might get onto the CMOS chip and the camera may have cleaned by Nikon.

      • Neil

        Can’t happen unless these theoretical particles can travel through glass.

        • C Benson

          That depends upon where coating is coming off inside the lens because when you look at the picture you can see the coating flaking. So you have to determine that the flaking is on the back of the lens not inside.

    • another anonymous

      Where do you have 5 year warranty? In usa? We’re not all from there! I got only 1 year of warranty on my 70-200 VR (first version) worldwide and second year only in the country where it was bought, but it’s 2x higher to usa price for nikon gear where i live and i bought in uk for only ~1,4x higher to usa price before year and half. This warranty problems descourage me much more than current issue with the 70-200 VRII as i expect it will be solved

      • another anonymous

        sorry did i mention that i also do technical work and get the same money as someone who don’t but in us? i don’t care to spend more for quality gear, but i also want to get it as i’m not from country where i can buy new lens each year ;(

  • Mike

    Normal? Normal my a$$! If this would be “normal”, all or most of the Nikkors would exhibit it, right?
    If I recall correctly, Canon 1D MkIII’s AF was also “normal” for the first 6 month, then it became an “issue”.
    The sooner this becomes an issue, the better!

  • john

    bull shit!
    i sent mine to nikon service center today. the peels from the lens threads covered on the most of 2nd group of element. let’s see what canon’s new 70-200 turn out. i am ready to move to canon.

  • C Benson

    If that is normal for the coating to peeling off inside the lens. So what happens to the coating, when it collects inside the lens? Will it fall on to CMOS chip as lens is being used? For example if you are shooting nature or birds. If so, Nikon has a problem because people are not going to keep sending in their cameras to be clean and be force to pay a surcharge for the cleaning. Do to the fact there is manufacturing problem with the lens.

  • john

    i would also call ftc for this issue. they should recall this lens.

  • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

    Well,
    I guess you have to make choices, I have a Nikkor 105mm AF-S 2.8 macro and that is the BEST lens I have ever seen (even better than Leica).
    In the other hand, I have a Tamron 28-75mm that does the same job as the Nikkor 24-70mm for 1/4 the price !
    Nikon have very good, good, and bad lenses, we have to pick the one we like and see somewere else what we can’t find from Nikon.
    But I agree, a $2000 lens sould be perfect.

    • Segura

      I seriously doubt the Tamron can do what the Nikon can do in the 24-27mm range ;)

      • Mike

        Well, it certainly doesn’t “do” the Nikkor’s ugly distortion in the 24-28mm range and it sure as hell doesn’t exhibit such strong light fall-off at 24mm …

        • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

          You have a point there, that’s why the AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor is very hard to find and still expensive.
          But it’s people fault, we (they) want zooms with larger and larger and larger range, so Nikon made the 24-70mm !
          I wish the kept the AF-S 28-70mm but with the new AF-S motors (the first one are very bulky and heavy).

  • akenathon

    It is already an issue for who will need to re-sell their lens on grey market later & will not be able too because st series are badly finished. this is enough money loss for the owner.

  • Mrs Nikon

    No, it’s not normal. It simply should not be peeling. No matter if it’s not an mechanical part, which makes it even more strange btw.
    If this happened to Canon, all Nikon users would be joking about Canon QC. But, now it’s Nikon and it’s okay.
    Well, if this is okay, nobody can ever complain about buying a lens which has dust in it.

    • fxed

      Bravo

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Nikon might elect to treat different customers differently, either based on what countries customers reside in, or based on whether customers are professionals. According to Nikon, China and India combined will be their biggest market in very near future. In order words, Nikon doesn’t even give a F%^& in their potential biggest market. One thing I know is that Nikon only offers US customers five-year warranty on lenses. We hope that Nikon will elect to treat US customers fairly otherwise potential class action could be carried out against it.

  • Anonymous

    somone in Japan is goin to do hara-kiri for this

    • another anonymous

      he/she will do better to make things in order even if it cost money. nikon is not one year history of quality optics and we want it to stay so, but will it?

    • WTF

      HE or SHE better does. This is something to wake them up!

  • akenathon

    in this society of mass consommation, too much is accepted.
    if we accept, we accept to be manipulated by industries triing to blur our minds saying “it’s normal”.
    Tomorrow we will have plastic added to our milk & claim that it is “normal” !!!

  • Neil

    All this whining reminds me of the zoom creep issue of the 18-200 when it came out. Lots of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and hyperbole. In the end everyone calmed down and realized that it is what it is and went on with their lives. That is how I see this issue ending. Other than a minor cosmetic issue during the manufacturing process there is no evidence yet of active changes caused by the cosmetic defect.

    • JohnGG

      if the creeping of the lense wasn´t an issue then why did NIKON “rectified” it in their newer version? IMHO this is not a case of cosmetic defect. It is a case of a whole philoshophy of Nikon-prime-lenses-are-expensive-but-perfect that is about to fall apart. I hope it doesn´t.

    • JohnGG

      if the creeping of the lens wasn´t an issue then why did NIKON “rectified” it in their newer version? IMHO this is not a case of cosmetic defect. It is a case of a whole philoshophy of Nikon-prime-lenses-are-expensive-but-perfect that is about to fall apart. I hope it doesn´t.

  • JohnGG

    If this is a flaw in the manufacturing proccess, who can tell it is the only one? Ichecked mine after taking only 4 pictures and it was there! So I guess that´s how I bought it.
    NIKON respond. Ken, Thom, Joe etc please comment!

  • nikkor_2

    “UPDATE: I received a word that Nikon is looking into this issue and will have an official statement soon. Let’s wait and see.”

    NR Admin, what is the timing of your update (i.e., the one repeated hereinabove)?

    And, do you have any sense of when Nikon might release its official statement?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I received that message shortly after this post came online – not sure if it is authentic

      • nikkor_2

        I see; thank you for the details.

        It will be interesting to follow Nikon’s reaction here.

  • Ian

    I’m no engineer but it seems to me this is a manufactured part that is made that way.

    it doesn’t look painted so I don’t see it chipping. But the holes in the finish look as if they were made that way. So IMO it is a non issue.

    should they have put a beautifully machined part in there? I’m not sure it would have made a difference in the function of the lens, but it would have avoided the paranoia.

    • Anonymous

      Look at it this way. You buy a car and you love it every way, except for that little rattle thay only you can hear. Would you accept it or live with it?.

    • jay

      This is total BS. I could buy a 50 cents parts from Home Depot and looks better than this. Stop making excuses for Nikon.

      • Ian

        I’m not making excuse. the part looks like crap and I hope they come up with a fix for everyone. but my lens performs great and I’m more scared of having a incompetent douchebag open it than I am of an internal part looking good.

        Honestly this doesn’t look easily fixable so I would use the lens for now until some kind of solution is found. So far this is the best 70-200 i’ve ever used, all brands, so if I have to deal with a little cosmetic defect which, by the way is only perceivable when I point a flashlight down my lens, well I guess I’m willing to accept that.

        • WTF

          Workmanship is an indication how long this tool will last. The sloppy work done inside the lens tells me it has a high chance it will break sometime down the road, even the warranty expires. Not acceptable to me, even though it does take good images now.

  • http://www.andrewwood.com Andrew

    My lens doesn’t seem to have the problem. It looks clean :)

  • Anonymous

    Finally some sense!

  • Anonymous

    mine doesent have it. And makes amazingly sharp clean images. But then it would if it did have it. I expect nikon didnt expect a bunch of sad internet forum users to go peering inside with a torch inspecting the supposed unseen innards… Its not a fault, its just not as pretty as the outside. Go look under your car, see if you can find some less pretty bits? Then send it back.

    • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

      Cool, so you agree to exchange your’s with someone’s defective zoom lens ?
      That’s very nice.

      • low

        have there been reported defective units?

        • Anonymous

          yeah people are collecters/ discussers and not users of cameras most of the time

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      mine doesn’t have it either – got it from J&R, serial 200096xx

      • john

        it will show up sooner or later. My copy was clean when I bought it. But it show up after 200+ exposure. Trust me. You will see it.

  • Anonymous

    The internet is full of loonies…

    • JohnGG

      …who post anonymously!

      • another anonymous

        very funny Johnny ;) but this is my nick

        • JohnGG

          Glad you are amused, but there are several Anonymous that are not the same person (check the car statements), so how can we differentiate? Maybe you should use prefixes, like Anonymous-001 etc.

          • Zorro

            Your example is a suffix.

        • JohnGG

          This is a reply to ZORRO, but since there is no REPLY button after his responce, I use this one instead. So, here it goes:
          ZORRO, thanks for taking the bait. This was indeed a calculated mistake, Why? Here is why!
          Prefixes, suffixes, Anonymous-001 or 001-Anonymous, what’s the difference? It serves the same purpose, right? To differentiate among various Anonymities. So if this a flaw, it is only a cosmetic one. I think that many posters in this topic will agree with me.

  • akenathon

    it seems that some “Anonymous” internet loonies are working to lick the ass of nikon. if you accept a carrot deep in your smokestack this is your problem.

  • Kevin Y

    wow that’s pretty balls up of them to say that it’s not their problem. Nikon your service has sure been bad lately.

    • another anonymous

      +1

  • Dweeb

    Yup the Nikon BS train left the station. A lot of people were told Minivan paint peeling was normal too until there was a class action lawsuit. Just refuse to accept delivery of one of the marred lenses. If enough $2500 lenses pile up they’ll do something about it.

  • akenathon

    Mt thoughts : would’nt it be wiser & a gain for them to use better materials or invest in better & more efficiant work forces either than facing a costly return & repair of lenses ?!!!!!

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/7904589@N02/ Zenndott

      Of course, but in this day of mass consumer-oriented manufacturing (yes, that includes even high end camera gear these days), companies like Nikon are utterly dependent upon subcontractors to produce parts. I would like to know where these parts come from.

      • WTF

        BUT, when Nikon facilities in Japan received these parts, the worker who put everything together didn’t say look, what’s these? Somehow, someone higher up inside Nikon said, go ahead, they won’t notice. They forgot in this day and age, people exchange information quickly via internet. They might have gotten away from this before. Would be an interesting research topic.

    • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

      Well, here is a big news:
      WE PAY FOR ALL THE ISSUES, MISTAKE AND REPAIR MADE BY NIKON !
      The retail price for a Nikon lens include all the warranty repairs and production defaults cost.
      So, if Nikon have many of those 70-210mm to repair or exchange, the price of this lens or others Nikon lenses or cameras will go up !

  • Jay

    Thats disappointing, but lets wait til we see what big nikon says about it before we all jump to conclusions

  • Jer

    Mine has it and I never mounted it to a body. I called Nikon customer service and they said they could not promise me a replacement lens or even fixing the problem until they looked at the lens. I purchased mine through Amazon and so have returned it for refund. I think I’ll look for a used VR I.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    70-200 VR1 version price just dropped from $2149.00 to $1949.99 within last hour at Amazon.com. However, the price was $1799 a couple weeks ago. Could Amazon.com have gotten some inside message from Nikon USA already?

  • Ken Elliott

    I looked the the picture of the lens in question and what I see is not flakes. I do see pits in the threads. Given the shape of the screw bosses, I suspect this component is cast metal, and when you cast, you sometimes get pits. So even if the machining process was flawless, you might still have pits in the threads. Is this a problem? Well, I’m sure the load is easily handled by the part of the thread that is intact, and this will likely make no difference in the function. But I’m certain Nikon has a PR issue on their hands. Likely, they had a casting issue with part of a batch, and I bet they will offer to replace it for any customer that has this issue.

    This is exactly the type of problem that appears when you have a new product. You have unexpected issues in the first run of product.

    • john

      The peelings looks the metal particles. It reflects the light so it affect image quality. according to my test, it pools autofocus. The metal particles can scrach the lens element if not lens coating. It is serious problem. Nikon needs to recall this lens.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/7904589@N02/ Zenndott

    Let’s also remember that the “this is normal” comment comes from the Beijing service center, not Nikon Japan, Nikon USA, etc. Let’s see what the main company and other subsidiaries say before jumping to conclusions about “Nikon does not care.”

  • Mark

    As a Journeyman Toolmaker and in the machining field for 30 years, if my inspector told me tearing of the metal was normal, he would be caring his lunch box to his car for the last time.
    Regardless of location, threads require very specific geometry and tolerances to work properly. The thread contact area is VERY small, even on 1/4″ threads. Even IF these junk threads are not in a loaded area, this is a VERY POOR representation of quality or control.

    Threads tear because:
    1- Flaws in the base metal
    2- Improper cutting speeds
    3- Improper setup relative to cutter angle and centerline of the tube
    4- Dull cutting tools creating too much cutting pressure pushing the metal off instead of cutting.
    5- Bad program in CNC lathe or problem with lathe

    Please, this sounds like someone with ZERO machining knowledge making these comments.

    • Recent Convert

      It need not be a machined thread. It could be die-cast, in which case the observed damage could stem from uneven ejection, free-fall damage on ejection, poor lubrication, or poorly maintained mold. . .

      • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

        What about using a can opener, they could get a better result.

      • WTF

        Really, it doesn’t matter what’s the cause. If you had a part in your hand, that looks crap, broken all over the place, worse than anything you have seen from Home Depot or Wal-Mart, that something you would not buy or you would want to exchange even it is $1 at Home Depot, what would you say, considering you are a highly trained tech assembling a precision machine?

        You would tell the boss, and what did the BOSS do? Someone at higher up said, THEY, us consumers, won’t notice. That’s what went through their minds. Otherwise, how do you make sense of this?

  • SHV

    I have the “problem” with my 70-200 VR II. In addition to the “dings” in the threads that have been mention, more careful examination of my lens reveals more “pitted” surfaces in other internal metal “rings” and small silver particulates inside of the lens.

    People who say this problem is of no consequence should consider the reduction in resale value.

    I and others have reported this problem to Nikon USA and they recorded the serial number and gave me a “case” number. From my conversation with the person in service, I didn’t get the impression that Nikon USA is taking this problem lightly.

    Steve

  • http://www.imagesofwildlife.com mark

    Can Nikon say quality control? This opens the door for overall quality control issues. Does this problem occur in many of the other lens or just the new 70-200 II? probably not as it would have been reported before – why is it no occuring in this particular model?

    One item – what country is this being manufactured?

    • SHV

      I just looked at my 14-24, 24-70, 50 1.4G, 105 macro, 300 f/4 and two TCs….the interiors are all pristine…the interior of the 70-200 is obviously different.

      Mfg. in Japan

      Steve

      • longtimenikonshooter

        I just happened to return a defective D3s about two weeks ago, and this week returned one SB-900 that has battery door can’t be closed after batteries are inserted. They are all proudly Made In Japan.

        • Jeff

          I returned my D3s two days after purchase. All the photos were soft regardless of lenses and all tests were done with tripod, mirror-up, and cable release. They were so bad at 66% and especially 100% that I’m sure all would have been rejected by most stock sites. I re-shot the same with my D3 and no issues at all so I’m sure it was the camera body. Too bad as the photos were great for spot on color, I would have loved to keep it but I figured I’d wait to re-purchase rather than get an exchange at that time so I could see what findings other users have had. I will say it seems D3s issues aren’t common.

        • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

          Your batteries are too long.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Here are the serials I compiled from imperfection claimed on two forums so far. Among them, five users indicated manufacture date in YYYY-MM-DD format.

    200016xx
    200017xx
    200022xx (2009.9.25)
    200043xx
    200055xx
    200077xx
    200079xx
    200089xx
    200090xx
    200091xx
    200091xx
    200091xx
    200110xx
    200110xx
    200112xx
    200130XX
    200135xx
    200147xx (2009.11.16)
    200153xx
    200158xx
    200161xx
    200164xx
    200165xx
    200165xx
    200178xx
    200182xx
    200204xx (2009.12.07)
    200204xx
    200257xx (2009.12.21)
    200265xx
    200271xx (2009.12.25)

    Can anyone with perfect copies also update your first six digits of serials and manufacture date if possible, please? Thank you.

  • benS

    +1 Normal ? That comment from Nikon China is Totally BS !

    Even if it is just cosmetics , this is top $ Pro lens ! A lot of people are paying hard earned money to get their hands on this lense.

    How would u feel if your new Ferrari’s ( assuming u or me can buy one ) paint is peeling off ? Yeah , it does not affect performance, but 100% the feeling SUCKS !

    I am still a fan of Nikon and will remain loyal to Nikon. But dont Nikon USA or Japan dare say the same thing that this is “NORMAL”. Keeping my fingers crossed.

  • Mark

    This is not related the any Nikon lenses. But I did,and still do have problems with a weird oily substance seeping from the rubber base plate pad on my D3. It’s Always present when I remove the ‘L’ bracket. Nikon blew me off with a stiff wind on that one.. Good Luck getting anything from them on this one! If it doesn’t effect the workings of the lens.. Ya get my drift..

  • Steve

    I’d take the metal flakes anyday over having to shoot with a leica…

    or canon.

  • Back to top