This is the direct link (in Chinese) to a Nikon Asia Q&A entry. Rough translation:
Question:
Why does the internals of the lens look so rough? Will the bubble-like stuffs affect the PQ? Will they shed off and accumulated in the lens?
Answer:
The bubbles were the remains during the production of the lens. They are magnified through the lens so look obvious. It will not affect PQ and will not accumulate.
fyi: pictures of my 70-200 VRII lens with a perfect "thread": picture 1 | picture 2.
Related posts:
182 Comments
This is the first ray of hope in this whole mess. That “major parts replaced” is what the fix involves indicates this is not some figment of our mass hysterical imaginations. Houston this lens has a real problem, albeit a fixable one by replacing some major parts. Now, hopefully, the Nikon Japan mothership will follow suit and make a formal announcement and establish a common process/fix for all the lenses effected.
If all the people who have commented on this with ‘expert’ opinions had actually bought the lens, Nikon would already be able to launch the VRIII and VRIV versions!
There more comments about this lens from non-owners on the web than the number of these lenses that will probably ever be sold!
Sure, non-owners who won’t buy this piece of crap lens Nikon is building, and probably more that won’t buy Nikon at all because they don’t trust Nikon to build quality gear anymore, now that they’ve lowered their quality control and build standards.
I must say that I now feel Canon is the way to go. The 5D MarkII and some very nice Canon glass is the road to perfection. Had enough with Nikon – endless bodies released and the occasional decent lens mostly poorly made! Look at the line up of Canon glass it is superb.
what canon lens are you refering to? Canon lens is softer than Nikon for sure.
sure but the Canon 5D II AF & metering system quite s#cks. not talking about the REBEL LINE who’s af is just irrevelant most of the times a new boy comes out.
140 comments of pure utter nonsense, a few merely asking questions, that’s okay. I cannot believe how silly these comments have become. I will count my own comment as 141. Utter disgrace, none of the comment have really contributed to the lens use or lack of due to this cosmetic observation. As far as I am concerned, I’ve been shooting this lens with no problems even though I do see small pits after shining a torch down my lens for curiosity. Lens IQ, this is probably my favourite Nikon Lens, and all my other N and non-N lenses alike are all in wonderful condition. If I do notice problems, I will correct it under warranty like any other product, final!
If the “problem” is so slight in your lens that you have to use a flashlight to see it then you can count yourself lucky. There are plenty of folks who are not as fortunate. My copy included. Glance through the front element in a dimly lit room with no flashlight required and you can see speckles-a-go-go. No IQ issues? I don’t know. I have not seen any tests comparing a good copy to one that needs “major parts” to fix. But to think this will have no effect on the fair market value of the lens is foolish.
My problem was not with those who had a ‘real problem’ with their lens, rather the number of really silly “comments” posted rather than really citing it as a real course of concern, and ‘yes’ I was merely saying I didn’t have the problem myself. If flakes are happening, has anyone sent their’s back for a warranty fix? I’m not commenting about the concern, and yes if I had a bad copy, I would do whatever I could under my rights and warranty to get it fixed and then let others know the process, my issue was with the vast majority of non-contributing comments on this site.
“But to think this will have no effect on the fair market value of the lens is foolish.”
I didn’t even mention such a thing.
Grumps:
The lens just came out and it has two major issues already: 128mm at close focusing + the holes and debris. How do you know it won’t develop other problems? Give it time. The probabilities are that it will. However, by that time, it would be too late for people to do anything about it. In addition, what if Nikon comes out with the MarkIII version, because the MarkII sales crashed because of all the reported problems.
A great way to cap off all the PR BS from Nikon this year about the “50 Millionth Lense” and “50 Years of Nikkors”, eh? Less advertising BS Nikon and better quality in the future, eh? When you can’t engineer a simple light baffle after that long producing lenses …
this guy’s got a different issues.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=34262421
“Okay, admittedly I was rough on the folks here that thought they had real problems with their new 70-200s, but my problem is genuine and severe! “
This guy Micro32 (or should I say MyCrow32) just crows over how PRO he is and uses offensive language to prove that “there is no problem”. This is another attempt of him to ridicule the problem, but he doesn’t succeed. At times he also uses “parental advice expressions – e.g. My son” to persuade he is right. But he knows and it is obvious to everybody else, that he is NOT!
That is bad, very bad. My advice is to take the lens to the nearest emergency room, for immediate treatment. If for some reason, hospitals refuse to admit the lens (they are weird, imho) then home remedy is the only alternative.
The Staphylococcus Aureus bacteria is responsible for this condition, which is highly contagious. Therefore the 70-200 VRII should be segregated or better quarantined, in its own little room, to prevent infecting the other lenses and cameras – we do not want to deal with an epidemic.
1. The carbuncle or boil should be punctured slightly to allow the infection to drain.
2. The drainage should be cleaned by dabbing a cotton swab into the tea tree oil. Gently apply the oil onto the boil/carbuncle with the swab. Dispose of the used swab and be careful that it does not make contact with uninfected parts of your lens to prevent further infections. Repeat this several times a day.
3. IV antibiotics should be administered twice a day with a syringe ~ 1 ml, each time.
4. Plenty or rest and fluids recommended. The best thing is to lay the lens in a little cot covered by little sheets and little blankets.
5. Monitor the lens temperature every two hours. If hot, bring the temperature down with 1/8 of an aspirin.
In two weeks, the 70-200 should be better than new, except…
(That post was a joke, imho, and thus my response to it.)
I’m sooooooooooooooooooooo glad that I don’t have any money to buy that lens !
I just can’t believe Nikon is willing to flush their reputation for quality control down the toilet over this.
the lens also has focal length problem. This lens is easily one of the worst Nikkor lenses ever made.
Not another one, read up on the optical properties of internal focus lenses and the way they work or look back at my last post.
It is not a problem but a crap design in order to eliminate vignetting the compromise is reduce maximum focal length. In effect it is not a true 70-200mm more like 70-128/187mm depending on focal distance. For most studios, indoors and events situation were focal distance is no more than 2-5m your typical maximum focal length are somewhere between 130-170mm not constant such as 190-200 like the old V1.
What I understood, but might be wrong, was that the MKII version of the 70-200 was going to be f/2.5 and 82mm filter size. I was really surprised that when the new version was announced it was 77mm filter size and f/2.8, just like the MarkI version.
Big call…
nikon should invent new wider lens mount. I am pretty sure that the nikon’s narrow f mount prevent fast lens design. Canon and Sony both successfuly migrated to the wider lens mount since they start making AF camera. 70-200 VR II close range focal length problem shows some nikon’s design limitation. I think their narrow lens mount contribute on that limitation.
I never thought about that, very interresting, is the size of the mount a problem only with fast tele lenses ?
I had a Minox with a 35mm f/2.8 lens, and the mount was very small.
So, will it be much easier to make fast tete lenses (f/1.4 ?) with the DX sensor ?
If I can get a 14-40mm f/1.4 DX zoom, I may not have to stay with the FX size cameras.
i think the narrow lens mount affect telephoto lens and wide angle lens design of those have fast apeture. if you look at those pro lens, you will noticed that they were maximized to use the inside of barrel as much as possible.
poor nikon fans.
those who complaining and returning this lens do not have any options for this focal range. those who decide to keep this lens worry about particle vagneting and lower resale value.
how long will take for nikon fixing manufaturing process for this lens?
4 months? 6 months?
I have a feeling that you own a Zenit camera with a Cosina zoom on it.
lol
you are wrong invisible man!
i own nikon d3,d300,14-24,24-70,105,70-200 vr,70-200vrII,16.
sorry but, this is adult section. boys need acompany with parents!
this is why nikon quality going south.
http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800573948_480200_NT_bf4e0576.HTM
That story is from May 2009, and involves a semiconductor chip fabrication facility…nothing to do with lenses.
Canon still making money so lets see canon’s new 70-200 is II quality.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124876270554486141.html
The problem with this problem is that it is not a problem unless the problem becomes a problem because it really was a problem when the problem was not considered to be a problem. That is the problem……..
If the problem with this problem is that it is not a problem unless the problem becomes a problem because it really was a problem when the problem was not considered to be a problem. That is the problem, then if so, what IS the problem?
PS
Grumpy, I liked your post very much. It’s very funny, but I though if I tweaked it a bit it won’t harm. Thanks
At least the 70-200mm issue give us something to think about while waiting for the D700x/D800/D900.
[NR] admin
See this…
It seems to be the English translation and then some… (it is also posted on January the 15th)
http://nikonasia-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikonasia_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=6600&p_created=1263552569&p_sid=6FzMngSj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNDYyLDE0NjImcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1
Yes John, I posted that link last week:
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/01/15/nikon-asia-also-claims-there-is-no-problem-with-the-70-200mm-f2-8-lens.aspx
Thanks!