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

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:23:27 +0000

This seems to be par for the course with Nikon Service. I have a 24-70 2.8 in the service center right now that I sent them because my rubber surround on the zoom ring was peeling off and flopping around. I get a letter back (yes, I am NPS and I got a letter back.. seriously?) that said my 14-24/2.8 was “sticky” at 50mm and it was because I dropped it (no comment at all about the rubber). After 3 calls back to them they are now calling it a 24-70/2.8 but still are not saying a word about the rubber and keep going on and on about how I have to pay for the “extensive repairs” because I dropped it, yet it focused and zoomed perfectly when I sent it to them. I’m starting to wonder if the Tech dropped it and wants to pin it on me. Pathetic. I’m really close to switching over this and the lack of good video from a nikon midgrade pro DSLR (d700) since I shoot fusion now (with a mix of both canon and nikon).

I’ll be interested to see Nikon’s statement about the 70-200.

By: The invisible man.

The invisible man. — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:17:22 +0000

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).

By: A Ball

A Ball — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:29:56 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:57:58 +0000

funny, you waited 20mn on your 20mm. I hope that connection doesn’t hold…”your wait time is between 70-200mn” ha.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:55:30 +0000

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

By: The invisible man.

The invisible man. — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:49:20 +0000

LOL, this is getting funny !
My turn : I had a brand new 20mm f/2.8, the pictures were bad, very bad (it is supose to be a very sharp lens).
I called Nikon, after 20mn waiting on the phone (I have a cordless phone, and I was afraid the batteries ran out and having to do the all thing again), finaly I was able to talk to a guy (I bet he was located in India, his accent was worse than mine !).
He told me that the 20mm is a very sharp lens and that It was my fault if I could not take good pictures.
That’s what I call a great customer service !

By: The invisible man.

The invisible man. — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:41:07 +0000

Your batteries are too long.

By: fxed

fxed — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:30:59 +0000

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.

By: fxed

fxed — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:25:40 +0000

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

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:53:51 +0000

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 …

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:49:45 +0000

Where is the proof that it doesn’t?

By: ozawa

ozawa — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:01:21 +0000

nikon usually doesn’t say anything about their own problems. D700 had a lot of minor problems and they are still updating the firmware to fix these problems. Canon is way sincerer.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:44:35 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:35:32 +0000

Anyone who has ever had threads cut on anything or done them themselves knows that’s a BS answer. Professionally cut threads should always be clean and sharp and the whole flake thing, what an amateur job on Nikon’s part. The fact the QA didn’t catch it is probably because folks are saying it’s showing up after some about of zoom use. Their beta and pre-release inspections should have caught it but might not have if the tool maker retooled prior to the offending run.

Should be interesting to see what Japan and USA have to say

By: JohnGG

JohnGG — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:57:25 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:55:55 +0000

If the QC is shit for the stuff that’s hard to see, what does the rest of the lens (the parts that you can’t see) look like?

Quality, like character, is what happens when no one is looking.

By: Anony-mou

Anony-mou — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:37:29 +0000

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.

By: Micah

Micah — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:36:08 +0000

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”?

By: atk

atk — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:07:58 +0000

20000890 >> I would say no problem for me.
no peeling
there is just one tiny sport on the inside metal ring

Could I say perfect?

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:05:53 +0000

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

or canon.