< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Weekly Nikon news flash #262

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-f3.5-4.5G-ED-VR-lens
→ Price drop: refurbished Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens now sales for $299.

Cactus-V6-wireless-flash-triggering-system

→ New: Cactus V6 is a new wireless flash trigger that can remote control power levels of Nikon system flashes.

Nikon-D4-water-damage Nikon-D4-camera-water-damage
→ Do you remember Alexy Joffre Frangieh who painted his Nikon D4 with military grade "Desert Mirage Lizard" paint? The very same camera got filled with rain water after being left outside during a storm: see all the pictures and the story at Petapixel.

Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens
→ The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount should start shipping at the end of the month (May 30th).

Nikon-cashback-offer-in-Australia
→ New Nikon cashback offer in Australia.

This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • fixit

    —and that’s how you clean the sensor?

    • Neopulse

      He’s cleaning everything obviously since water GOT INSIDE OF IT.

  • fjfjjj

    1. Paint inside of lens hood a light color
    2. Leave camera out in rain
    3. ???
    4. Profit

    • Fred Flintstone

      He must have forgotten to steal the underpants

  • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

    I’m quite the fan of that 24-85: very lightweight, sharp and compact. I prefer it over the 24-120/4.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      I bought the 24-120 during the last lens-only sale to replace the 24-85 that came with my D600. I sent it back 11 days later.

      • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

        Have you ever tried the 28-300? I tested it beside the 24-120 and it stacked up pretty well. Big tho, and darker, of course.

        • Patrick O’Connor

          Not yet, though you strike at the heart of the matter. While the 24-120 is marginally better, optically, than the 24-85, its primary advantage is greater focal range, which is modest in practical use. These marginal differences don’t justify the added cost and weight. While the 28-300 is a little worse, its extended range is a definite advantage for a more reasonable price.
          I was looking at both of them for an upcoming trip to Japan and chose the 24-120 based on Nasim Mansurov’s recommendation. After returning it, it was to late to take advantage of the lens-only sale for the 28-300 and so, well… I do plan on getting it but not to replace the 24-85. I hope to replace it with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 with VR though, someday!

          • Global

            I have the 28-300 and you’re right. It makes a great substitute for a 24-70/2.8 + 70-300/VR, when you are traveling and can’t take those preferable lenses, so it probably substitutes the 24-85 and 24-120 quite well.

            If someone already has a 28-300 or a 70-300 or even a 24-70 — you might want to consider the 18-35 FX lens. The 24-85 is a more of an FX substitute for those who can’t stand heavy weight or don’t want to pay for the 24-70 or other iterations. Its a good value at a refurbished price.

            The 18-35 FX lens, by contrast, is much lighter than the 16-35/4, and shares much of the width. Pairing with the 70-300 makes a great light weight match that covers everything from wide to far with reasonable brightness and resolution. Though someone could equally substitute this with the 28-300 at some considerable cost to the wide end a bit of loss of sharpness at 300mm.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Last year I was torn between the (then) new 18-35 and the Tokina 16-28, which I ended up buying. I had a limited buying window and there weren’t enough reviews available on the Nikon. Sometimes, I wish I had the range and light weight but, had I gone the other way, I’d have missed the extra 2mm on the wide end and the 2.8 aperture for astrophotography. If the lottery commission would cooperate I’d have one of everything! :-)

  • Spy Black

    The 24-85 is the perfect compliment to the J1…

    • AM I Am

      Compliment or complement?

      • 24-85mm

        Why thank you

        • Neopulse

          lol, funny guy

      • Spy Black

        Correct, my mistake. Good thing it was only a joke…

  • Marcel Speta

    it’s very probably that the water came thru the lens… i would be more curious to see the pictures taken during the storm :-)

  • Aldo

    Ebay: Lightly used d4…

    • Rob

      Freshly cleaned..

  • JohnH

    My first experience with the 24-85G AFS VR was not very good – in fact I had bought it to replace my 24-85G AFS (non-VR). The wide end was a little better, but the long end was definitely worse than it’s predecessor. The VR version was sold. Perhaps a bad copy, but I’ve been reluctant to try one again.

  • MB

    So there goes Nikon weather sealing down the drain …

    It seams though that he removed the rubber gasket from the lens to be able to do this stupid paint job … stupid is what stupid does …

    • Neopulse

      You can put it back and it will be sealed again. Have you ever dismantled water resistant stuff? It doesn’t affect it much removing the gaskets unless the gasket itself becomes damages (tears or holes for example). It would make Buying a D4 would be useless if you ever took it in for maintenance and when you got it back, it wouldn’t be weather resistant anymore.

      • MB

        As far as I can see on pictures he never put the gaskets back on … so it is no wonder water made it inside the camera.

        • Neopulse

          He did leave it in a rainstorm for 16 hours. Shouldn’t shock anyone that it got water inside especially with the positioning which made it worse. Don’t overthink looking at the pictures. From what was written about it, it was reason enough to know even if it was brand new it wouldn’t have held well at all.

  • 103David

    Kind of reminds me of the rule prohibiting issue of handguns to morons.

    • zoetmb

      There’s a rule prohibiting the issuing of handguns to morons? Could have fooled me.

  • JR

    He left it outside in the rain? Why would you do that?
    Next time buy a Pentax. A K 50 has 120 choices of colors. I’m not sure they have Desert Mirage Lizard though.

    • zoetmb

      Did you read the article before commenting? He was doing a time lapse and was 70 miles away.

  • nzswedespeed

    I really like my 24-85mm VR. I can’t afford the 24-70mm, and I had a terrible experience with Tamron so only stick to Nikon lenses now. I reckon it’s a great bang for buck lens, with decent optical quality and is nice and light.

  • Rr

    Ok, so he painted his camera and then left it out in the rain a “year” later.

    This confirms a lot.

    What a joke

  • tengris

    Doesn’t look that bad. My D700 with attached AF-S 300mm f/4 fell into muddy water in a swamp two years ago. Luckily it sank just about one foot, so water pressure wasn’t that high. Unfortunately the 300mm is not sealed at all, so camera and lens were full of water and dirt. For first I could only rescue card and battery. Back home I started remediation with little hope. After being baked in the oven for half a week, the camera was back to life and made some first “look at that tremendously heavy dirt on that sensor” photos. One week later the lens came out alive, with rather opaque lenses and abrasive sounds while focusing, but at open aperture the images looked quite normal with some loss of contrast. And well, we are NOT talking about some raindrops and moisture inside a sealed gadget, we are talking about a serious insurance case. After some internal cleaning by the service the camera is back on duty and didn’t fail a single time. The lens went to the insurance for refund. They wanted it for whatever reason. Maybe they have a service technician in Bangla Desh who can clean it for peanuts. I think it was quite well with just a bit to much dry mud and limescale between the lenses and a bit too much sand in the AF drive. Nothing to worry about for us nature guys.

    • i

      But it is something to worry about these things aren’t cheap or disposable.

      • tengris

        That’s why I digged into the mud and brougt it back to life during the next weeks. I knew, that no service technician would even try to repair a drowned camera “as is”. After all I brought it in working and cleaned both at the out- and the inside, as far I could reach it, with clean sensor and clean mirror. They only had to disassemble and clean the finder optics and to inspect and clean the electronics. Of course it would have been easier to get the camera refunded. But I hate to dispose well proven gear if I can avoid it. And well, it might have appeared in a bad light to kill a well insured D700 a few months after the announcement of the D800.
        Unfortunately I couldn’t do more for the lens. The service station skipped it as “service costs exceed value”, despite it was basically working. I sucessfully repaired several lenses, but never an AF-S model. Would have been a chance to get a little practice with it. But however, the lens is gone and I have a new one. And I’ll never be that stupid again to lay it on a self inflating camping mat while working in unsafe area.

  • Back to top