< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon Asia also claims there is no problem with the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens

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.

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

    BS…fix it!!!!

    • another anonymous

      i want see their answer if in short time there start to occur lens where there will be picture quality affected hm

      • Anonymous

        I think that everyone’s concern is that the flaking/peeling of whatever is coating these threads will somehow affect image quality if these flakings somehow get placed in between/on lens elements.

    • Anony-mou

      At the risk of looking stupid… What is this thread used for anyway? I would guess that it doesn’t any have mechanical function, unlike a filter thread for example. Because if it does, I don’t see how anything could slide through a disrupted thread pattern anyway, so my guess is this thread is useless?? Enlighten me.

      • Ubiquitous

        It is not a stupid question, at all. According to Nikon USA, in an email sent to an owner of the lens, these threads are used in the assembling/disassembling of the lens.

  • john

    another bs.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/philograf/ Philipp Hilpert

    It`s not a bug.
    It`s a feature!!!

  • Jay A

    I overnighted my lens Monday to Nikon CA to try and beat the parts backlog that may occure. I’m expecting some sort of response today from them.

    I’ve seen so many threads at the various Camera sites – Nikongear, Nikonians, FredMirandia – all stating the same things over and over again on how parts falling of could affect the picture, devalue of lens, etc. This just plain needs to be addressed by Nikon. If the customer wants it fixed – FIX IT Nikon. I’ll drop our GREAT NR Admin with details of what Nikon CA does for my situation.

    • Chuck

      My lens had quite a bit of flaking all the way around on several rows of threads. I also looked in the rear of the lens and there is a silver piece of something on an internal lens surface. It is just off center, smaller than a grain of sand but bigger than a speck of dust. It could be a coincidence but it doesn’t look good at this point. I shipped it to Nikon, El Segundo three days ago.

  • Neil

    Face it people, unless it can be proven that this is more than a cosmetic issue it’s merely a cosmetic issue they won’t address. No more terrifying than seeing a little cosmetic issue on top of the engine in a car. If you weren’t looking for it you wouldn’t see it and it certainly doesn’t affect the performance.

    Only seen one thread on the Nikonians site regarding this. It’s a big thread, granted, but only one thread really.

    • []V[] i k e

      People, If you have the problem, Return it, ASAP, and get new one from the stone shop. I already send it back. Now I need to wait for a refund. This lens is already devaluated. Nikon tries to say it is not a problem, I say, BS, cheap materials and production in Taiwan, Nikon tries to save money, and like this it looks like. We pay more for cheaper stuff.

      • 凸 V_V 凸

        So what is wrong with TAIWAN ?

        • Torben

          What’s wrong with Taiwan you say?, hmmm depends… good food (strong at times), overall kind people, go far enough and there is still “untouched” wonderful nature… but when it comes to high-end/PRO. stuff that I pay $2000+ for, TAIWAN is -wrong-.

        • []V[] i k e

          wrong is, that companies move around the world where cheap labour is. Cheap labour + Poor control + Poor product = FCKD Customer
          That is wrong.

          • 凸 V_V 凸

            Vike and Torben,

            I guess both of you are “FCKD customers”, I could understand with my sympathy. If you don’t like your Nikon, just return it or sell it. Face it or maybe go buy a Leica if you want some real high-end stuff. And stop whining here! Go out and take some real photos like a man!

      • Lolly

        I didn’t know that some parts come from Taiwan … anyway Nikon is ultimately responsible for QC and not the parts manufacturer.

        • []V[] i k e

          In Japan only little of production remain, Most of it comes out INDIA, Taiwan, China. That is why you will never get a warranty more than a year on their products ;)

          • 凸 V_V 凸

            Is your statement base on fact or you make it up by yourself ? Nikon has cover 5 years warranty for every lens sold in US/Canada. Stop providing false statement and whining with your BS.

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            On lenses yes, so it’s relevant.

            However they don’t do that with bodies. That seems unfair since they’re more likely to fail, but they’re contain more wear parts and a constant flow of new models means that parts are not readily available five years later and it would be expensive to make them so.

          • Cash

            to 凸 V_V 凸

            No seriously. USA gets 5 year with extended warranty. in Europe you get 1 year and that is it. + We pay more. I don’t think that []V[]ike is lying.

          • Anonymous

            WRONG WE GET 2 YRS ACTUALLY AND 4 YEARS IN SOME STORES !!!! plus the used market that is with the 2 or 1 years waranty left by the first consumer often.thats for france.Anyway I think its smarter to sale your stuffsevry 2 or 3 years to not loose too much money and get tne new stuffs lettingg beginers using the pro series of past years for cheap!! Thats the way photography works in France at least.

          • Anonymous

            no extra payin !!!

      • edch

        That lens is not form Taiwan, but is form Thailand. They’re totally different countries.

    • john

      the particle could prevent the light get through the lens. we are not talking about the car in here. we are talking about the light managing equipment. that is why this is serious problem.

      • []V[] i k e

        serious because you paid for it, and there is no service. That is wrong. I Boycott …………………………………………………………………… I fight via emails with NIkon. Nightmare …………..

  • jeff

    If you want to send a clear message, return the lenses you have and/or don’t buy the 70-200mm. They’ll get the message real quick.

    • low

      +1

    • low

      No kidding

    • []V[] i k e

      AGREE Boycot, we show them !!!!!

      • low

        i wasnt talking boycott. i was simply stating, use it or cry wolf. the choice is yours.

  • Don

    This really just looks like casting voids–it doesn’t appear to be a threaded part, but just a “light baffle” with concentric rings. Nothing should fall off of this piece especially since it is painted with the matte black for the inside of the lens. I really don’t see what the fuss is about.

    I’m very impressed with the IQ of this lens compared to the previous version.

  • Random Snapper

    I have returned my new lens based on this issue. Gone back and refund collected.

    I am upset as I want and need a 70-200. I will wait until I can find a ‘new’ new specimun.

  • low

    Wow this must be clearly affecting PQ with all these complaints! But yet all the images I’ve seen with this lens have been spectacular.

    • []V[] i k e

      think about the future. One year warranty expires, and then what??

      • low

        im pretty certain the lens will still put out some fantastic images after 1 year.

      • steve

        Yeah, but all they have to do is say on this particular lens with these particular serial numbers we will honor the warranty for 5 years.

        A pretty common occurrence in situations like this.

        • http://micahmedia.com Micah

          They have a five year warranty on USA serials in the US.

    • jeff

      Go buy a new car with golf ball hail damage. It still drives the same.

      But why would you want it? Or pay full price for it?

  • Martin

    Wow, they’re trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

    I agree, boycott the lens. This is an object of precision. There’s no way this should be happening.

  • shivaswrath

    woah . .this is not going to end well, they better do something QUICKLY from a PR perspective. . .we get a 5 year warranty in the US, so we’re “covered”, but I’d be pissed. . .glad I’m buying mine end of the year!

    • []V[] i k e

      Yeah Nikon warranty sucks, We have one year in Luxembourg and rest Europe, 2 years in UK and USA 5 years!!!!! Camera bodies do not have world wide warranty. Body gets only 1 year. BS ;(

      Canon has 2 years,

      • Ubiquitous

        When I got the D5K as my backup camera, I did not buy it through my local dealer because they did not have the Nikon extended warranty (the D5K was a subject to a recall, then.) I went through B&H + extended Nikon 2 years ($99) warranty. My local dealer advised to get the Mack warranty, instead, which they were offering. They even said that the Nikon warranty was worthless. I thought that they were being more than dishonest. I read so may horror stories about the Mack Warranties. However, looking back…

      • Digitalux

        []V[] i k e, I don’t know where you live but, as a Luxembourger I am buying my gear from B&M shops. I can also tell you that the warranty is 2 years, first year covered by the manufacturer, second year by the dealer, just like in almost all EU countries (but the UK…).
        I believe you must be buying grey imports from a well known Luxembourg web site (whose prices and services are excellent, by the way) and get only 1 year, which makes sense, isn’t it?
        Cheers, Derek

  • John J

    Plus, they keep addressing the casting issue without discussing the silver bits part. Honestly the “threads” in my lens look very good while the inside looks like all I would need is to add water to make it a snow globe.

    Now I don’t know if this is particulate matter or not, nor if it will have any impact on IQ. But I think it screwed the resale value big time especially given all negative buzz.

    • JohnGG

      Ditto,
      my lens has a minor thread problem, but an element (I think is the second element) is covered with dust and shinny particles. I also see a dot-like black spot on another element. The lens is unused. I sent it to the store I bought it and wait them to sort it out with Nikon.

      • nicolekissman

        I sent back mine. We need to send clear message to nikon. They cannot make this kind of mistake. when they did, they should take care of nikon fans. i will wait for a few months and see if they come up with some solution for it. If they fix this problem, I will definetely buy it again. If not, i hate to do that but I will consider switch to canon. they just anounced new 70-200. it does close focusing up to 1.2m with very good magnification.

        • Anonymous

          you’re really thinking of a complete system switch for a single lens??!?!?!? have you actually tried the old one?

          • nicolekissman

            I had old 70-200 VR and I liked it but honestly it has problem on 200mm more than vagneting issue. It is soft enough. When you pay premium price for pro equipment, you will expect more. I am a nikon users for 19 years since i switched from Minolta. I cannot imagine I leave nikon but this is key lens for my pro work. do you have better idea?

          • Anonymous

            must be a copy issue. my edges on full frame are fine. and i don’t pixel peep corners.

            if your professional work really demands such a high degree of sharpness, would make sense to go medium format, no? results would pay for themselves. would also save you money switching from system to system everytime the competition makes a lens that could be better.

            you’ve switched from Minolta and are now planning to switch to Canon. A full set of pro gear costs what? 10K minimum? each time you switch you loss ~30% = 2 x 3K = 6K + originial 10K spent = total 16 K gets you started with medium format.

          • fxed

            Why are you giving this guy grief. Who the “F” are you. Since when did it become a requirement to give you or anyone of your ilk a reason for being disgusted with companies charging big bucks for what they deem pro quality and putting out crap workmanship.

          • J

            there’s nothing wrong with being dissatisfied with a bad product. you don’t like it, don’t buy it or return it.
            the question was whether there’s an alternative and there is.
            your belligerent comment is not helpful at all.

          • andy

            you guys need to chill.
            do something creative, like march around nikon HQ with a pitchfork…

    • fxed

      Ditto 2. For now I don’t have image quality problems. The point is that Nikon will fix the production process. Like they would really keep putting out this lens with those manufacturing defects. That means those of us unlucky enough to be out of any return period are stuck with a lens that will have little resale value in the future.

  • Hap

    They just look more like an error.

  • Segura

    Return it? Boycott? Everyone needs to get over it, especially buyers in the USA (with a 5 year warranty)

    While you guys are boycotting and shooting with the old 70-200mm or 70-300mm VR, I will be putting this lens to use. If it ever becomes a problem, I will send it in for repairs, but at least I will enjoy the time I have with it.
    I didn’t wait 4 months for this lens, to end up waiting longer. My thoughts are the pictures with this lens are more spectacular (with no vignetting) on my D700 than my old VR I was. Glad I got rid of that lens. Even the pictures look sharper and more pop.

    • low

      Segura > exactly my thoughts.

      nikon didnt put a gun to anyone’s head and demanded they buy it. B-b-b-b…, but its $2400, you say? well, youre pro right? get another after 1 year if it does break or go shoot canon (almost spit out my coffee on that one!) cause there are people who are still puttin out fabulous images with the old one. this new one has no match in performance.

      or did folks just buy this lens just so they can say, “WOW SHARP at 1/15th handheld!!” (the same folks who shoot brick walls and blue skies)

      • JohnGG

        Selfish, arrogant, mostly irrelevant and egoistic talk (Segura too). We buyers are not your enemies. I guess there others like me saving for over a year to buy this lens. Now you tell us to buy another one next year? And NO! I am not a PRO. Should I be one to buy this lens? Mine is going back. Many will do the same. You keep your crippled copies for the glory of Lord Nikon. AMEN!

        • Ben

          Crippled? My lens is taking fantastic pictures. The lens plain works for me. Only when I look in the wrong end of the lens do I notice anything out of place. I shoot from the other side of the lens though, and I haven’t noticed any problems when doing that. ;-) I have the USA 5 year warranty though, so that does help me. For those of you outside the US, yeah, maybe you should be more concerned. I just find this mass hysteria kind of comical though.

          • JohnGG

            The thing is, it is not “out of place”, it´s “all over the place”! So, you noticed it, too? BTW what´s wrong in looking from the other side of the lens? Also, do you really think you can judge a lens quality just by looking at some pictures, without any test? I have an old lens, full of dust, even fungus and this still doesn´t show in pictures. I do not agree this is mass hysteria, either. Only hard earned money going down the drain.

        • Cash

          Agree with you!!!!!!! People who say it is fine, have the lens clean and just polluting the forum here. I would not be surprised they are all from China trying to change our opinion. LOL M o r

          • Simon

            Nikon Norway and USA says the same thing. Sop much for your anti Chinese hysteria.

    • suegear

      My initial contact to nikon gave me some idea how nikon handle this problem. They were going to charge for cleaning up the silver particles instead applying warranty. It does make sence for them since they claimed it is nothing wrong. so think again about your trusty waranty thing.

  • Ubiquitous

    What if you do not want the 70-200 VRII, in the future? How much do you think you’re going to get for a lens, with all these problems, without a warranty – the warranty is not transferable?

    • Ubiquitous

      Here is another email reply from Nikon USA: “the pits and flaking and debris are within “standards” for the lens.” Meaning that if the lens is sent in for repairs because all the debris, Nikon USA won’t service the lens.

      • SHV

        I got the same response. According to their e-mail, by reporting the position of Nikon USA that the 70-200 VR II is the “new standard” for Nikon lenses, we have committed an illegal act.

        • nicolekissman

          send it back and wait for a few more months. I bet they will fix that problem if they do not want to out of business.

        • Ubiquitous

          Sorry to disagree. That is not “new standards,” but lack of standards, imho.

  • ozawa

    Why you guys so freak out about this lens? It’s certainly not the first time Nikon didn’t admit the obvious problem as the problem, They usually don’t. It will cost a lot of money to recall the products and Nikon has been suffering from huge deficit lately. They won’t recall the products. The best way is to boycot it, or sell Nikon products altogether. They have always been about 3 years behind Canon.

  • http://liveon35mm.wordpress.com liveon35mm

    The problem here is not the image quality, which is likely not to be affected by some small particles but the fact that small particles inside a lent that has an AF and a Zoom rotating part can seriously affect the mechanics.

    That is my main worry, especially if the lens starts clean and deteriorates with use (which is not clear if true from any thread).

    I was going to buy the lens, I need it before mid march, hope something is sorted for that date.

    I knew going bloody digital was going to be a pain.
    Already the 24-70 has got a nasty distortion (but this is another issue!)

    I’ll end up ordering some velvia and put the batteries back on my contax zeiss system who never failed a shot in 20 years of heavy use…

    • Ubiquitous

      Spot on!

  • shivaswrath

    honestly, I was considering this lens, but am waiting on it now. . .and wondering if it doesn’t get cleared up, if I ever well?

    the used values of the VR1 are going to go back up!!

  • longtimenikonshooter

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister of Nazi Germany

    • Ubiquitous

      I was going to pre-order the DX 24mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.4 VRII, or the 135mm DC f/2 VRII, if they came out with any one of the mentioned lenses. After all of these, I have to be stupid to do so. In fact, I might not buy another Nikon product – I have enough. It is impossible financially for me to start all-over again with another brand. Thank goodness I have 3 Zeiss, 1 Voigtlander, and 1 Sigma.

      • longtimenikonshooter

        I canceled my pre-order of 300mm VR2 when Nikon said defects to my eyes are “NORMAL”.

  • Ray

    I remember some Nikon disasters in the past (like the BGLOD). Those were also ‘ignored’ at first. At least it seems 1 thing is admitted. This ‘problem’ is in the lens from the start. For me it is obvious I would never have bought a lens this way if i would have known upfront. This in itself should be enough to return the lens. According consumer law over here.

    There still is no official response from Nikon so I will wait for a bit longer to see if they are prepared to satisfy their ‘disgruntled customers’.

    For those that think there is nothing to complain about. Answer this question for yourself. Will you check this lens before you buy it, knowing this? Which one will you take when there is 1 perfect sample and one with the ‘problem’?…

    You are welcome to exchange your perfect sample with mine… if you really believe that you don’t mind.

  • akenathon

    even if it doesnt affect the pictures, THE RESALE VALUE OF THOSE SERIES WILL BE A TOTAL LOST. this is already enough.

    • Anonymous

      cause it is always about resale??!!!??…… gotta keep the lens mint, keep the boxes for years even if they clutter your house…. because no one else will buy it is there is a little mark or a manual page is torn…..

      This is the same mentality as leaving plastic on couches IMO….

      • http://www.patrickhallweddings.com patrick hall

        yeah this is my main concern…resell. I buy and sell nikon cameras probably every year. The lenses I sell less but if I had the old 70-200 I’d def be selling it now to buy the new one. When the used market is filled with “good” and “bad” versions of this lens, you are not going to be happy when the VRIII version comes out and your spotty lens is going for $600 less than the good ones.

        This is garbage! Nikon get on top of this now.

  • []V[] i k e

    I just got a call from a reseller, I will get refund next week, they are returning it to Nikon. YEAH

  • lavery

    Mine has a few little pits, probably less than 5 in total. To be perfectly honest, I didn’t look into the lens when I bought it so I have no idea if they have been there all along but it produces fantastic quality shots and until it can be shown that those marks are the results of bits falling off and not an issue with the casting (like Nikon say) then I say quit whining about a minor cosmetic issue.

  • Joe

    Yes it does make amazing picture at the moment, but who knows what will happen in the future? And looking at their responses right now I have no guarantee that they will fix it when it does affect quality/performance as the particle increases. And even if they do it still mean downtime having to send back to Nikon.

    For me I paid for an $2400 high quality lens that should last me for years, but knowing the fact that shiny dust appear just under 2 week for use, $2400 for 1-2 year of use is not worth it for me.

  • akenathon

    my gosh “ANONYMOUS” or you do it by purpose because you work for nikon (what I really doubt regarding the high frequence of your posts) or you REALLY DONT GET IT !!!
    even if the lens is in “nice cosmetic condition”, all 1st SERIAL NUMBERS will be internet listed. EVERY ONE will know that the lenses on craigslist will have THE THREAD OF DEATH issue (same with 360 consoles). SO YOUR VALUE WILL BE LOST ANYWAYS> this is about simple logic my friend.

    • Ubiquitous

      You have to understand where people are coming from. Many have sold their VRI to get the VRII and it comes with problems. Furthermore, there is very little they can do now, since it might be too late to return the lens. The lens takes amazing photos, so far. So, they are looking at the bright side.

      Nikon is another story. Who buys a $2,400 lens? Pros or advanced amateurs. In other words, Nikon’s base. Nikon is screwing their base. Penny wise and dollar foolish? By the time the new leadership at Nikon (Kariya and Terato – “Batman and Robin”) realize what is happening or are fired, it is going to be the proverbial “too little, too late.)

      • Ronan

        Nikon is screwing their ‘base’ by giving free check ups and replacement of that part?

        Ok……………………

        • Ubiquitous

          Who says that Nikon will repair the lens? Nikon HQ has yet to make an official announcement regarding the issue. Nikon Asia, very close to Nikon HQ, has said: “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.”

          The latest from Nikon USA was through an email: “the pits and flaking and debris are within “standards” for the lens.” Meaning that if the lens is sent in for repairs because all the debris, Nikon USA won’t service the lens.

          Nikon Norway said that Nikon HQ will make an official announcement within the week. Well, the week has gone and no official announcement, yet. However, we are getting all types of announcement from the Nikon underlings and they are all denying that there is a problem: It does not affect the quality of the photos.

  • JohnGG

    Consider this:
    whatever the problem with this lens is, it is obvious that it is QC problem and a poor assembly line. Who then can be sure that there isn´t another issue that will surface after quarantee has expired (or sooner)?

  • low

    can i see a show of hands of whom have experienced this lens has failed them?

    • Ronan

      No one.

  • Cowbell

    Yep Nikon fanboys, bend over and take it and love it no matter what Nikon says.

  • wtf da

    the sky’s falling, the sky’s falling!!!!!!

    I think my thread is flaking and there’s imaginary shiny dust in my lens, the motor is making excessive inaudible noise, and it is back focusing by .055mm off the focusing plane.

    gosh, i guess i’ll send it back.

  • akenathon

    yes. do it now, unless you want to loose money when problems will get worse. unless you want to loose money.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    here is another report:

    Just spoke in person with a couple of guys from Nikon Support.
    It does look like the official line from Nikon is going to be that the defect does not affect the lens optical performance but they will replace the part if the customer so wishes. Customers who have bought the lens [and registered] the lens will be notified by Nikon.
    The problem is that [at least in Europe] replacement parts are not in stock and will only be in stock in about 3 weeks time, add to that a repair time of 1.5-2 weeks and you are looking at 4.5-5 weeks from now to get the lens repaired.

    http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=52f55ff9d00fdccd705e96ed35865534&topic=22517.80

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

      Great job, thank you for the update !

    • low

      oh good! we can go back to shooting 1/15th (handheld, of course!) of our nieces and cats and not be bothered of resale value.

      • JohnGG

        So, to sum it up. Brick walls, skies, now cats and nieces. Is that all? FYI I shoot dogs too and I would gladly shoot you too (take a picture of), If you only care to pose for me along with my mother in “Low” (I mean law). By the way, what do you shoot big Guy? weddings? As I told, mine is on it´s way back as many others out there and there is nothing smart talk can do to stop it. In the mean time, i´ll keep on shooting the neighbours daughter with my 200mm f/2 at f/2 hand held, at 1/15 of course, which is Low enough, thus praising Lord Nikon.

        • low

          no i dont shoot weddings fyi. and i dont pixel peep, shoot blue skies or brick walls, but i do use what i purchase and i certainly dont complain about a lens that works as it should, lol! if you sent your lens back to nikon why are you still whining about it?

          • JohnGG

            Although I don’t owe you or anybody else an apology, I feel it is only fair to let you understand how I feel.
            As soon as I orderd the Nikon lens in question, I also orderd the following, to go with it: 1) L10: Lens Plate for Nikon 70-200mm/2.8, 2) LCF-10: Foot for VR/VR-II 70-200mm/f2.8, from ReallyRightStuff, amounting to USD 185,23 (incl. postage) and 3) Nikon 77mm Clear NC Glass Filter, amounting to USD 136,20 (incl. postage). This is a routine I follow. For every NIKON lens I owe, I also buy a Nikon filter (and/or available accessory) for it! (I really don’t need any comments on this). I do so, because every other Nikon lens was received in pristine condition. In my mind “Nikon” and “perfect lens” was synonymous (and still is in a sence. Every body is entitled to make mistakes, as long as they correct them). To sum it up: I am keeping the foot, the plate and the filter, as I am going to buy this lens again in the future, when the production line and the QC is updated. But still, it is not about money. The main reason I am “still whining” is because I felt I was let down by Nikon. I have been dreaming of buying this lens for more than two years (started with VRI, on to VRII) and then when I got my hands on it, I had to return it… I am not a PRO and I don’t have “to go out there and shoot like a real man and stop examining the lens”. It’s my money and I can buy whatever I like, “JUST TO HAVE IT”(which is not the case with me), or “PIXEL PIP” (this I admit I do all the time to all of my lenses!) or whatever, and nobody has the right to advise me against it, or critisize (and I really don’t care if one does). To cut a long story short: If Nikon addresses the problem and withdraws all preblematic lenses or offers to clean them up, would you just keep yours and go on shooting? Would you have bought this lens in the first place, if you were aware of the problem (which you still don’t accept it exists)? Why is Nikon taking so long to respond (it’s easy, isn’t it? There is no problem! China, Asia and Holland say there is no problem but not “mama” Nikon as yet).
            In my opinion, let us all calm down and see what NIKON has to say about it. Then it will be clear who was right and who was wrong in the first place.
            Have a nice weekend…

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

          I don’t use filters on my lenses, not even the front cap, I just keep the hood on it all the time, it’s much faster and easier to change lenses (I mostly use fixed focal lenses).
          The front lens element is well sealed and dust will not go into the lens trough the front (for the back of the lens that’s an other story).
          To me, UV filter are useless (except for mecanical protection), UV are already stoped by the first element of your lens.
          The front filter can also help moisture to develop because the air it retain bettwen the filter and the front element is not dry.
          Finaly, unless you use multicoated high quality UV filter, it will give ghost and light reflexions.
          This was my personal opinion, I will no be responsible for damages, accidents, financials or emotionals issues resulting in applications of my advices.

      • suegear

        personal question to “LOW”
        do you currently own any nikon gear? I think you are working for Nikon rather than a photographer. In case you not aware of it. We are talking about new nikon 70-200 vr II among those who own this lens or consider to buying this lens.

        • low

          yes, i currently own 14 lenses, all nikon except for one..a sigma. i own what i actually use and dont purchase ‘just to have.’ trust me, if i see something im not satisfied with, i definitely will be upset. however, calling for a boycott or worrying about what a lens will be worth for resell is ridiculous. i do make $ on photography, but not enough to be a mncally or krist. this lens is aimed at the pro market and a good majority who do purchase this lens intend to actually put it to good use. if not, then youre purchasing this piece of gear ‘just to have’. why would anyone spend this much money on a lens if they weren’t try to make a few cents here and there. would you buy a bmw if you couldnt afford the maintenance?

          • fxed

            The “Maintenance” is standard with BMW.

            You have 14 lenses and you use them to make money. No pro grade calibre lenses. Who are your clients? How much did those 14 lenses cost you? How many bodies do you have to use those 14 lenses. You say unless you are a McNally or Krist you have no reason to buy this or any pro calibre lens. You don’t get upset with manufacturing defects. You don’t worry about the resale value of you equipment. If you buy a pro lens and are not a pro it’s not put to good use.

            1. 14 consumer grade lenses sounds like a heck of a waste of money.
            2. You must do a heavy amount of PP.
            3. The 14 lenses more than likely are redundant in FL, the application you use them for and the cost of all that glass is a waste of good money . Whereas with better equipment purchases two or three pro calibre lenses would have been smarter.
            4. The McNally/Krist example is just flat out stupid.
            5. I have a 50 1.8 and if it were defective I would be pissed but not to any great deal, it’s cost $99.99 when I got it. My 70-200 VRII costs 24 times more than the 50, what do you think.
            6. I sold my D300 for $250 less than I paid. $1799-250=$1549 with 6months use. The person that bought my D300 got a 9+ camera. Just because you use equipment does not mean you treat it like it’s disposable. BTW that sale financed my D700 and likewise the D700 will finance either the D3s or a D700 replacement. Before you ask, yes I do use my equipment.
            7. I’m not a “pro” dump all my equipment and buy 13 Nikkors and 1 Sigma in the “el cheapo” class.

            I don’t want to make this overkill and so have a nice semi-pro career. Goodbye

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

      and another one:
      http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=34260492

      “The spots I see inside the lens are air bubbles that appeared during casting. It will not affect IQ”

    • suegear

      when they replace the part, your lens elements will be exposed in the dust. I think they are not using a “clean room” like computer hard drive service, are they?

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

        I bought a 105mm 2.8 VR micro from one of the 2 big stores in NY, the lens was full of big nasty dust, I sent it back and get an other one with “only few dust” inside.
        So, even in a $900 Nikon is not able to make lenses without dust inside ?
        When I started photograpy 22 years ago (OMG am I that old ?), they were NO dust in brand new lenses, not even in a cheap 50mm !

        • Ronan

          I have never had dust in my lenses… I must have own around a dozen (all Nikon).

  • Grumpy

    Remember those days were lenses were shown in printed catalogues?. I’m pretty sure Nikon bragged about their high quality products and QC. A lens, especially a 70-200/f2.8 is an high quality optical product. Any production fault is a QC issue, no matter what. Maybe not now, but eventually the pieces will find their way somewhere to play havoc to the inside of the lens.

    • suegear

      I cannot agree more.

  • Ronan

    I can sell my version I for a mear $2300 USD. It doesn’t have this new foam/thread thingy feature though.

    If interested respond here.

    :)

  • Anonymous

    i say boycott it and see how nikon feels

  • sjms

    my only comment on this is that you continuously refer to it as threading. it is not threading. threading is a continuous winding path. on this it is a series of closed circles. it is properly referred to as light baffling. to reduce/trap light. to prevent reflection.

  • http://wasatchreflections.com Darrin

    perception and reality are two different things. Even if there is nothing wrong with the lens the perception is building.

  • Ken Rockwell

    Maybe I’m not crazy!

    I thought I was nuts. I have this talent of seeing defects in things before anyone else does.

    For decades, I seemed to be the only person who noticed optical and mechanical engineering errors.

    I’m the only one who reports on them in lens tests and now I was the first to notice this problem too. Its an incredible talent that I possess and now the web is full of consumers who went out and checked their 70 – 200 VRII lenses as I directed them too.

    • JohnGG

      … and keep FARTing too.

      Ken, welcome aboard,

  • benS

    to NR AADMIN , I assume alot of PROs ( journalists, sports shooters , etc ) have this lense. Has any well known pro experienced this and spoken about it ? Can you send a link ?

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

      not that I know of

    • optimaforever

      I’m not a pro but I guess they aren’t obsessed by the resale value of a (relatively cheap) 2400$ lens… For a pro what’s needed is efficiency on the field, and for the moment the VRII delivers… Perhaps the pros are laughing about this.

      ;-)

      • longtimenikonshooter

        Sure, pros don’t even think $10,000 pro lens *expensive* as long as it can deliver IQ what other prosumer models can’t. Many own/rent much more expensive pro lenses offer by Zeiss, that have far superior IQ than any Nikkor can match.

        However, pros want pro bodies and lenses not just for features and IQ, but also for their durability and build quality. Knowing the gear used in the field under any harsh conditions will not easily fail is far more important than just features and IQ alone. Because no pros want to risk their business/legal liabilities, period. It’s not so easily to carry backup copies for all lenses in your bag. As long as Nikon USA can come out officially state that those issues will NEVER affect performance, durability and image quality, I will have no problems at all using it. If something nasty happened down the line, such as it got jammed in the middle of a wedding reception, clients would sue me then I could turn around and hold Nikon USA liable too.

  • http://segura.org David Segura
    • SHV

      I noticed that in you picture that the edge of the ring, below the “threads”, appears to be loosing it anti-reflective coating. Mine looked similar but totally silver and “pitted”. IMO, this where the particulates are coming from and not the pitted threads. Ergo, multiple manufacturing deficiencies.

      Steve

  • Gary

    Kind of off topic, but Bob Krist, the guy in the helicopter above Miami with the top secret new gear, has responded to the rush of analysis and speculation bandied about due to his blog post:

    Now, as for that equipment, hit the jump for my thoughts on that….

    It’s pretty nice, but it’s not orgasmic, transformational, or life-changing. (At least not for me…I used to think I was a gearhead, but I am truly humbled by the level of hysteria excitement the prospect of new gear brings on in some quarters!).

    One guy went so far as to contact the helicopter company to ask the pilot and ops guy what I was using, another accused me of using a green screen and phoneying up the whole thing (Yup, that’s just what I did, right after I engineered the sub-prime meltdown), and in the worst insult of all, somebody else thought I was shooting through a plexiglass door or window in the chopper. Not to mention the dozens who have been studying the snapshot like CIA analysts might pore over a satellite picture of an Iranian nuke facility.

    This is just a thought, but all that energy some of you have been expending trying to figure out what the new gear is, might be better spent actually making pictures! If you put even a quarter of that gumption, imagination, and ingenuity being spent on gear-lust analysis into actual picture making, photography would enter a new golden age and the pages of Flickr would look like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel!

    Link:
    http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/studio-in-the-street/#more-3395

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

      If he did not want any gear talk and attention, he should not have mentioned that he is shooting with a secret camera – as simple as that. And yes, NikonRumors is about gear – there are plenty of other, really good websites about photography, this one is not. Of course I will contact the copter company – this is what I do.

      • Gary

        I thought Bob’s comments were too funny! And you are correct…I believe he is enjoying the increased attention!

  • longtimenikonshooter

    The following is taken from a guy’s post on Nikonians,

    … there is speculation from manufacturing stand point that Nikon has used recycled metals/materials to make this lens, which has caused metal impurity and associated issues on some copies. If that was the case, there would be no guarantee that issues would never develop in the future.

    From google translation of discussion on another forum:

    1, as a high precision optical equipment, Nikon should use die forging process, rather than using the traditional model without overwhelming technology.

    2, the general product in order to reduce the cost of basic raw materials, nothing wrong with using recycled material, but as a high precision optical equipment, it is risky and dangerous, because the recycled materials are complicated, difficult to control quality. Extensive use of fine-grained agents or improvers cause of inclusions and surface silver highlights the most direct cause.

    3, the lens have widespread above-mentioned shortcomings, also shows that there are problems with technology and raw materials.

    4, those inclusions disposed of improperly, not thorough, it will not rule out “dregs” as well. Even now, does not affect the use of temporary and must not mean the problem does not occur in the future, that is because of the quality of the existing defects, will lead to future impact of imaging results or can not work properly.

    5, the factory in order to maximize profits using improper techniques and recycled materials, the potential risks to users, it is very immoral.

    • plug

      Speculation, speculation, speculation. Has anyone found Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction yet? They must exist because so many people said it must be the case.

  • Mark

    What does any of this matter. None of these flaws will ever effect image quality. I haven’t seen it in mine. Also, don’t you realize that all these new lenses are supposed to be recycled after 10 years anyways. 2400.00 is chump change if your a working pro. Lenses are a disposable part of the business. Fix if you can, then recycle and buy fresh. Oh, that’s what that (10) stamped of these new lenses wants you to keep in mind. Don’t be tossing it in a landfill. All the glass, plastic and aluminum is recyclable. I strongly doubt any of these new lenses will be functioning properly after 10 years of pro usage. The materials they make them out of are not a durable as in the past. That obvious with the high amount of plastic used.

    • Ronan

      You forget that most of those clowns probably don’t even use their lens and simply buy it to say ‘i own one’.

      • suegear

        and you are the one of them!

      • Anonymous

        The guy behind Nikon Rumors is that way based on how bad the pics are above :P

  • Joseph

    well i don’t own this lens, but i never will if nikon doesn’t address this. for the many nikon pros who are on the fence between nikon vs. canon, customer service and product reliability are often the deciding factor. i can say that i am holding back on buying the 105mm micro to wait and see how nikon handles this. i’m not sure if i want to further invest in nikon gear at this point.

    • optimaforever

      what does make people Canon is different in this point?
      in Canon forums I read the same kind of whining comments, threating about a switch to Nikon ;-)

  • Chris P

    I don’t own one of the new 70-200 VRII’s, or a VRI for that matter, so can’t comment on the fault, although not owning the lens does not appear to have stopped others from commenting. My understanding, from what I have read here, is that a lot of people are reporting lots of small silver ‘speckles’ when they shine a torch into the lens from the objective end. Could it be that what they are seeing is multiple reflections of the torch (flashlight) bulb or led? Especially in the case of a led, which produces a very powerful concentrated beam, the tendency would be for that light source to be reflected multiple times by the lens elements.

    Secondly, all lens elements will have dust on them and it will get worse as time goes on, the dust is in the air in the first place. Just as you don’t see this dust in the air normally, but will see it when you are in a dark room which is illuminated by a beam of light, you will see dust in a lens when you shine a torch through it. The only way to prevent dust in a lens is to seal the lens and nitrogen purge it, as is done in certain very high end bird watching scopes. My understanding is that this is impossible in a camera zoom lens.

    I don’t work for Nikon or have any connection with them, apart from owning their equipment, however I do have a somewhat cynical mind as a result of part of what I do at work. I find it interesting that the fact that the 70-200 VRII shortens it’s focal length when close focussed, which all internal focus lenses must do, it’s how they work; now we have the ‘bits falling off/dust & speckles inside’ issues being trumpeted from the rooftops. Looking at DP Review these always seem to be the same few people, that strikes me as a bit of a coincidence to say the least.

    • Simon

      Not owning one does not mean people should stop commenting on it. The 1DMkIII AF fiasco does not mean people have to buy it and experience the problem in order to comment. Maybe people in one country should not comment on the behaviour and culture of another unless they have lived there?

  • suegear

    Ok.
    Is it sign of the people returning this lens or not selling?
    This nikkor 70-200 vr II price is drop from many e tailers.
    Roberts selling it for $2159.96+free shipping.
    Adorama-$2349 +free shipping
    Primo-$2299+free shipping
    Sigma4less-$2329
    Red tag-$2369+free shipping
    My fellow photographers who still wanted their copy, it is good opportunity to get one. I am sure that the nikon dealers also have their own flashlights. Is it time to buy a flashlight or not?

    • Simon

      Couldnt get rid of it fast enough because it aint selling due to the bad press.
      The weird maximum focus distant is another problem as people found out it is not a true 200mm.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      How do we know they are not selling those already returned copies? If Nikon USA’s final line is the issues are normal and by design with a purposes, how can we make sure we can return them back to retailers if delivered copies are full of those nasty things?

  • EdM

    Of course the chinese are going to deny that there’s a problem and that junk INSIDE the lens body is OK. Wasn’t it OK to use melamine in all that dog food, and lead-based paint on children’s toys, and cadmium metal in kids costume jewelry? You got to keep that western currency flowing in to that glorious bastion of individual freedom and center of truth. BULLSH**.

  • Chris P

    Simon, as far as I am aware the maximum focus distance is not weird, it is nominal infinity just like any other normal lens.

    If you are referring to the maximum nominal focal length reducing towards minimum focus distance this is not weird, every internal focus lens does it, it is a function of the design. One of the trade offs possible is that if the nominal focal length is reduced to a greater extent than usual, as in the 70-200 mm VRII, it is then possible to obtain higher definition at minimum focus, and this is the trade off Nikon chose.

    That a few photographers found this unacceptable to them does not mean that the lens has demonstrated some defect which does not occur in other internal focus lenses, which is what they appeared to be suggesting. All it demonstrated to me was that their knowledge of optics was somewhat less than it should be.

    • suegear

      buy one thme ,then.

      • Chris P

        No need to, I’ve got an AF-S 80-200 f2.8 and spending over a £1,000, allowing for that lens’ trade in value, is not cost effective for the extra optical quality I will gain.

        • David Segura

          I consider the optical quality of my pictures priceless . . . and your clients will probably agree with that as well.

  • Ben

    I keep reading that “pro’s” don’t care about a 2400$ lens they just buy it and shoot. Well, as a pro who’s only income is photography I totally disagree that 2400$ is chump change to toss around. I suspect most of the pro’s at last weeks ImagingUSA would have said the same thing. I currently use the old VRI lens and love it (the slight vignetting is actually a good thing in portraits/weddings). Now I am glad I didn’t upgrade. I paid 1250$ for my copy 5 years ago (refurbished) and its worked great.

    For those of you hanging on to the lens saying you can send it in for repair if it does act up, well good luck to you. I have had a 24-70/2.8 in at nikon’s repair for 3+ weeks now (and I’m an NPS member!) and I just sent it to them to repair the rubber ring you use to zoom the lens. After 2 weeks they told me it had been dropped and was going to cost 280$ to repair and they wouldn’t repair just the rubber alone(an obvious workmanship flaw). Instead I have to pay near 300$ for this fantom drop (and again, the lens was perfect when I sent it in other then the rubber ring). Thanks Nikon.

    For Nikon’s sake I hope the D900 is really really awesome, otherwise I’ll be switching to canon this year (Fusion is way to important for my business now and I’m already 20% canon. If the d900 doesn’t do *better* video then the 5dMMKII then I pretty much *have* to switch). Right now the 5DMKII video is better then the D3s video!

  • Anonymous

    check the 24-70/2.8, it has the same silver speckles.

  • blitz

    Looks like the 70-200 is being repaired for some folks

    http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=22517.msg179702#msg179702

  • Back to top