Having two discussions in one thread isn't going to work. From now on no more warnings I am just going to delete posts that go this far off topic. This debate is pointless unless you NEVER switch lenses.

The lens is not comprised of a solid piece of plastic molded around the rear element. There are spaces around the elements or else they wouldn't move at all. Dust will not go through the rear element, but around it. There is more movement within a zoom than a prime, therefore dust can move toward your sensor more than a prime. Take off your lens and wave your hand in front of your sensor. Even slowly if you'd like. This can put dust into it, regardless of a "plunging" effect or high volume movement.

I would only change lenses in a car if it were a windy day. Or face away from the wind.

JJump said:
Every zoom moves, whether internally or externally. It has nothing to do with a "plunger" or "sucking" effect. When the lens elements move toward the sensor, it pushes air toward the sensor, which pushes dust toward the sensor. If you think lenses are impenetrable to dust, you're wrong. You will get more dust on your sensor with any zoom more than any prime.

A plunger moves in and out - that is exactly what you are describing. It takes speed and volume change for this to happen - internal zooming lacks the volume change of air that creates the suction and the subsequent push of air. To move a significant amount of dust, the whole lens casing has to move like the 18-200mm not just a couple of elements like the 70-200mm.

JJump said:
I didn't say the rear element moved. it does have inner elements that move back and forth, and don't think that dust can't get around the rear element and into the body.

So how does dust get in? If you have ever shot in a dust storm, you would know the act of changing your lens gets more dirt on your sensor than any zoom ever will. That is the real draw back shooting primes. I mostly shoot with primes and have to clean stuff much more often then with any of my zooms. If it is a windy and dusty day, I will only shoot zooms for this reason.

PB PM said:
Only problem with that theory is that it isn't true. The rear element of the 70-200mm VRII is fixed and does not move, there is no way air can be pushed back through it. The 24-70mm F2.8G works the same way as well, the rear element is sealed, no air moves through it either.

I didn't say the rear element moved. it does have inner elements that move back and forth, and don't think that dust can't get around the rear element and into the body.

JJump said:
Never tried it, but I'd rather have the extra weight over my back in the bag than on my shoulder or around my neck. As Tao said, the 180mm is really all you need for that range, and it gets me tired enough when I use it for 2-4 hours. There's no advantage to me to lug the VRII around for hours. I currently don't have any zooms in my gear. They suck too much dust into your sensor, anyway.

I'm as primitive as they come, considering I use my feet to zoom, and my VR with any lens is a mini tripod attached to the camera and braced up against my chest.

I sold my 70-200 VRII for the 180 2,8 AiS, an SB700, a 28 2,8 AiS, and a 105 2,5 AiS. It weighs half or less, doesn't attract attention, and is just as sharp.

Can't stand long lenses unless I am in the bush waiting for animals to pop out.

PB PM said:
Only problem with that theory is that it isn't true. The rear element of the 70-200mm VRII is fixed and does not move, there is no way air can be pushed back through it. The 24-70mm F2.8G works the same way as well, the rear element is sealed, no air moves through it either.

Yes, that's exactly what I think. If we carry on with this discussion though, Niko's going to have it in for us as nobody will ever find this debate by searching for it in future. Maybe we should "copy & paste" the off topic posts to a new thread entitled "do zooms cause dust deposits on your sensor?" or something like it. Shame to loose everyones comments. Does the rear element move on any lens?

PB PM -
I didn't want to just come out and say that. I wanted to see if JJump would "bite" and claim that the rear element did move.

JJump said:
Every zoom moves, whether internally or externally. It has nothing to do with a "plunger" or "sucking" effect. When the lens elements move toward the sensor, it pushes air toward the sensor, which pushes dust toward the sensor. If you think lenses are impenetrable to dust, you're wrong. You will get more dust on your sensor with any zoom more than any prime.

Only problem with that theory is that it isn't true. The rear element of the 70-200mm VRII is fixed and does not move, there is no way air can be pushed back through it. The 24-70mm F2.8G works the same way as well, the rear element is sealed, no air moves through it either.

JJump - are you saying the rear element on the 70-200 moves toward or away from the sensor when the lens is zoomed in or out??? Distortion at both ends of the zoom range ... how 'bout at 85mm and 180mm? Lightroom and Capture NX correct distortion, if you take minimal time to set everything.

I'm a bit concerned that there is such "ownership" of prime vs. zoom being expressed. I use both. Never had a dust problem that I could attribute to the lens. Use what you like and be happy.

TaoTeJared said:
HUH? I have used "pro" zooms (clarify - "internal zoom") for years and there is almost zero push of air and what there is almost null and void on all brands.

The "plunger" effect is only a factor on zooms that have protruding elements like the 18-200mm, 70-300mm, etc.

The suction basically does not exist on the 70-200mm and most internal zooming lenses as they are sealed.

Every zoom moves, whether internally or externally. It has nothing to do with a "plunger" or "sucking" effect. When the lens elements move toward the sensor, it pushes air toward the sensor, which pushes dust toward the sensor. If you think lenses are impenetrable to dust, you're wrong. You will get more dust on your sensor with any zoom more than any prime.

Another downside to the VRII is you have to deal with some distortion at both ends of the zoom. This is nonexistent on the 180mm prime or an 85mm prime.

it is special...

The 180mm must be amazing if you guys said so. I never try it, but the first time i tried 70-200 VR2 it definitely gave me a very special feeling and it still does. The AF is fast, the bokeh is amazing, sharp wide open and i love shooting my 2 year old daughter with it outdoor (haven't find any better lense to date, mainly due to the zoom range that I find it perfect for the purpose).I have tried 35, 50 and 85 1.4 but never feel this special. Even though it is heavy, I still think it worth every penny.

JJump said:
That's not good if even the pricier zooms suck that much in. Maybe the heavier weight forces more dust than the lightweight ones.

HUH? I have used "pro" zooms (clarify - "internal zoom") for years and there is almost zero push of air and what there is almost null and void on all brands.

The "plunger" effect is only a factor on zooms that have protruding elements like the 18-200mm, 70-300mm, etc.

The suction basically does not exist on the 70-200mm and most internal zooming lenses as they are sealed.

shigzeo said:
I sold my 70-200 VRII and noticed (and lived) in the same country as Kanuck. That thing is a beast. I sold it in Japan just a few months ago for about what I got it for, bought a flash, a 28 2,8 AiS, 180 ED 1,8 AiS, and a 105 2,5 AiS and still had cash left over to buy most of my way back to Sweden in the fall.

Yes, this says it all. There is just not much justification in its price to me or many others. I'll take the 3 primes and the flash easily over the one VRII.

SkintBrit - I don't know how these Nikon lenses work, but as long as the overall volume internally does not change, there is no reason to allow external air into or out of the lens.

Interesting topic (off-topic) though, as I never thought about the old zoom lenses (which did extend with zooming) sucking in dust. Whatever - I never had a problem with it that I was aware of.

NSXType-R said:
Well if no air were to be moved in and out, or the lens is air tight, it'd be mighty hard to zoom or focus a lens right?

And no lens is watertight, so some air must be moving in and out at all times.

I'm certainly not saying I know the answer to this one, but I my mind that's a bit like saying if you put a person in an air tight room, they wouldn't be able to walk around? Why not? There can be some space around the INTERNAL lens elements, so long as the two external ones are sealed I just can't see why a zoom lens has any increased likelyhood of getting dust on your sensor than a prime. Also, spotting scopes and binoculars are often filled with Nitrogen to help prevent them from fogging, and many of them zoom. Presumably they must be sealed or all the gas would escape in the first week? Now as I said, if that air tight room were to remain air tight whilst increasing vastly in size, then I think you'd start to produce a vacuum, which would have a tendancy to want to suck in air (lenses that extend while zooming). Even in this situation I can't see why the air would be sucked in from around the lens mount? Any lens manufactures out there who can give us a definitive answer?

Sorry for keeping this off topic, but in the words of my children "He started it"! :-)

kanuck said:
Interesting argument here JJump about the 180mm. I have heard over the years that it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, and is it is noticeably lighter than the 70-200mm. I believe the 130mm DC and 180mm are the two sharpest lenses in the Nikon Lineup among others. The weight would be much less if you have primes such as a 50mm, 35mm and even a 85mm. As long as you don't mind not zooming and putting the work in with your feet :) Do you find yourself going wide much?

I sold my 70-200 VRII and noticed (and lived) in the same country as Kanuck. That thing is a beast. I sold it in Japan just a few months ago for about what I got it for, bought a flash, a 28 2,8 AiS, 180 ED 1,8 AiS, and a 105 2,5 AiS and still had cash left over to buy most of my way back to Sweden in the fall.

The 180 ED AiS is so much easier to use than the 70-200 VRII. It is less eye-catching. It is lighter. It is easier (but stiffer) to focus. There is no comparison between the heavyweight the 70-200 is to the wonderful 180.

Won't be going back unless my next job supplied me with it.

DeathK said:
The internal mechanisms shouldn't be air tight (no compression), but the two external glass elements should be.

But wouldn't that increase the chance of tempature damage as the pressure would fluctuate when going from a cold room to a hot outside and viceversa...

NSXType-R said:
Well if no air were to be moved in and out, or the lens is air tight, it'd be mighty hard to zoom or focus a lens right?

The internal mechanisms shouldn't be air tight (no compression), but the two external glass elements should be.

I if it sucked in air from the extending barrel join it would be sucking in external dust whereas from the inside it just blows the dust around if there is any inside of the mount. That is why my cheapo lenses like the 18-70mm have alot of dust on the back of the front element wheras my pro lenses have no internal dust.

SkintBrit said:
I know this is off topic, but it is an interesting question. I don't see why a pro spec lens made to tight tolerances should put any dust the way of the sensor. After all unless I'm mistaken the lens nearest the sensor doesn't move during zooming, only the internal ones. There would need to be some sort of gap around the perimeter of that lens for air to escape. I don't actually see why ANY external air needs to be sucked in or blown out of a lens that doesn't alter its length while zooming. And on those lenses that do, I would think any air exchange would happen around the zoom ring or extending barrel join?

Well if no air were to be moved in and out, or the lens is air tight, it'd be mighty hard to zoom or focus a lens right?

And no lens is watertight, so some air must be moving in and out at all times.

JJump said:
I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.

I know this is off topic, but it is an interesting question. I don't see why a pro spec lens made to tight tolerances should put any dust the way of the sensor. After all unless I'm mistaken the lens nearest the sensor doesn't move during zooming, only the internal ones. There would need to be some sort of gap around the perimeter of that lens for air to escape. I don't actually see why ANY external air needs to be sucked in or blown out of a lens that doesn't alter its length while zooming. And on those lenses that do, I would think any air exchange would happen around the zoom ring or extending barrel join?

That's not good if even the pricier zooms suck that much in. Maybe the heavier weight forces more dust than the lightweight ones.

JJump said:
I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.

That doesn't seem to always be the case as my 14-24mm sucks a slew of air in while zooming much more than any of the crap lenses Ive used or am using. However it does it from the back and not from the front... It is more a problem with older cameras who cant clean themselves like my D200. It always gets dust on the sensor from using that lens...

I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.