Unofficial response from Nikon Norway

This is the response from Nikon Norway to a nikongear forum member. I have the feeling the official response from Nikon will not be much different:

"There are no error or defect in your lens.
What you see inside the lens from the front are not threads, but a flange that prevents light reflection inside the lens. In the flange there are some very small holes, closest to the "pores" that occurs natulig during a casting process because of the fine print of the foam used in molding the forms. This does not affect the lens performance in any way. There is nothing to peel off from these small holes. They also look bigger than they really are, due to the magnification of the front lens element.
Nikon will publish an official response during this week as soon as it is available from Nikon centrally."

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


  • low

    thank god! i thought this lens was taking really bad images!!! wheeeeeeew!!!

    • Simon

      Except that these metal flakes can get inside your camera and riuned the sensor.

      • low

        how? i thought its trapped in the lens?

        • Simon

          Not quite. If dust particles can get sucked from the lens into the body so can these flaking bits. Lens particularly zoom are not completely air tight otherwise the moving parts simply won’t move in a vacuum. Air is needed to push in and out for zoom to work.

  • ian

    Hope people will start to relax

    • Why would people with a problems start to realx just because Nikon denies it? I’ve still got metal flakes in my lens! The fact that Nikon denies it makes me less relaxed as it means I’ve got a problematic lens and a manufacturer who unlikely to do anything about it….

      this problem showed up over time – if you are getting a clean lens today then here’s a chance it will fdevelop this issue as time goes on as well – so why it would be great to just relax I would still think twice about investing in this lens until Nikon provide a more substantial and genuine response.

      I’ll say it again, I don;t care about the thread – just the fact that there is metalic flakes floating around in the lens and on the elements. If posters would be happy and relaxed with this on $3000 lens then good luck to them.

      I’ve posted images online – – it was clean when I got it – it has progressively deteriorated since then. I’m not saying the metal comes from the threads – which are very uneven / damaged – but there is clearly somehting coming off somewhere in the lens.

      PS I also have a 24-70 – there was some talk about this same issue when it came out – it looks nothing like the inside of the 70-200 – the 70-200 I have clearly has an issue

      • Ken Elliott

        I agree that metal flakes inside a lens is a really bad problem, and one that would require replacement or repair. Not crazy about the “flange ridges” (AKA “threads). They might be ok from a performance standpoint, but not what I would expect from an expensive pro optic. Pretty sure this is just process issues from the first batch. But Nikon should stand behind this and fix the problem.

        • iamlucky13

          The question is, “Is it a problem?”

          If so, I’m sure Nikon will (at least eventually) got off their butts and fix it. Keep seeking an answer, starting with the dealer where you bought the lens, since they’re best positioned to be an effective liaison between Nikon and you. However, at least for those lenses where the “concern” is limited to the flange ridges and doesn’t include loose flakes, I have trouble seeing any issue. If these flange ridges are merely a matter of appearance (you certainly don’t feel them since they’re underneath the front element), that’s a pretty minor aesthetic defect.

          The loose flakes seem more concerning, but I’m not entirely convinced even those are a problem. Shining a light through a lens makes all sorts of things visible, and many of them have no effect on lens performance. Try shooting a test chart.

          As for Nikon’s story that these are marks from the foam mold, that sounds potentially legitimate. Cast metal pieces are often formed by a process called “lost wax casting” when high precision is needed. Machining is even more precise, but often more expensive. In lost wax casting, a wax form is made in a reusable mold of high precision. Metals often can’t be cast in reusable molds due to the temperatures involved. Then a casting form of sand or ceramic is formed over the wax. The molten metal is poured in the sand mold, melting and displacing the wax. The disposable sand mold is broken off after the part has cooled. Foam is becoming common in this method instead of wax because it makes a stronger mold. The roughness can be a result of defects in the wax/foam mold, or the texture of the sand used.

          • Good post iamlucky13. I have the ‘metal flakes’ in my lens. There is a large ‘flake’ on the front of the zooming elements – I have posted images of this on Flickr etc.

            Is this a ‘problem’? .Well speaking for a personal point of view , yes this a problem! I find any particles large enough to be easilt noticed in the lens a problem! The fact that appears reflective doesn’t help – the fact that there are also a heap of smaller particles throughout the lens is not good either.

            Will these particles affect the performance now? I don’t know… Will they affect its resale value? Definitely. Should I be happy and accepting of this issue in a pro lens which I make my living off? Of course not. I you find metallic flakes inside your new lens and do not see that as a ‘problem’ then you a more relaxed and tolerant person than me. The issue with the pitted threads – I couldn’t care less. The flakes on the glass – is a problem to me.

      • []V[] i k e

        I agree with you. Especially if 56 % people have problem and 44% not. This means Nikon screwed something up. Of course they say there is no problem 😉 Yeah it comes from Taiwan, goood Quality right?

        Do you know how much money it is worth? Only 625 people replied YES to a problem in this forum, if Nikon would have to replace it. that would be around 1 250 000 euro loss (lens 2000 euro) + shipping and other charges, and now think about the entire world. 🙂

        Of course they deny it, It is money. They sell shit and you paid for it. Your problem?? Well, I guess not.

        I know myself, if I would have a lens with this problem I would completely hate it. and I would make sure to get replacement. I would zoom in and out to proof I’m right.

        • theLMAO

          Can you also think that the poll in this site isn´t an accurate nor truthful way to know about the problem? everyone and their uncle Timmy are allowed to use it even if they don´t own the lens… so the results aren´t really showing anything there… Is there a problem with the lens well it seems so and there´s no denying people are concerned however (again) the poll isn´t showing anything that I would be accurate info about the problem.

  • So how Nikon explain that only some of the 70-200mm have it, and why other nikon lenses models don’t have it ?
    I bet people won’t buy it only and check the lens at the store.
    If you have a copy without the “pelling” keep it, it will get more value !

    • “won’t buy it ONLINE ”
      I need to emprov my English ;o)

      • nonbeliever

        you are so right!
        but there is indeed no peeling – peeling would mean you would see some blank metal but there is none

        • I’ve got metal flakes on the internal elements – I’ve posted images online – – it was clean when I got it – it has progressively deteriorated since then. I’m not saying the metal comes from the threads – which are very uneven / damaged – but there is clearly somehting coming off somewhere in the lens.

          PS I also have a 24-70 – there was some talk about this same issue when it came out – it looks nothing like the inside of the 70-200 – the 70-200 I have clearly has an issue

          • []V[] i k e

            Well I checked your FLICKR photos. Must say they suck as they are so small. I would like to have a good look at it. Send us please high res, photos.

          • []V[] i k e

            And please, make sure that yours 105mm VR produces Sharp photo.

      • Lolly

        Won’t buy, period !! Too bad Nikon’s reputation for QC will take a beating … perhaps Nikon is being too aggressive in releasing new lenses each year compared to Canon over the last 3 years.

      • another anonymous

        yes, but why is better not to buy it online as the issue is only visible after you already made several hundred images using it? what will you see there in store? i think nothing.. my hint is to wait some time to see how the things will go and then to make a decision. yes, only if you can wait some time…

    • I have one with the new flakeyflange(tm) light-baffles. If anyone has one without them, I’ll allow you to upgrade by trading with me, for a mere $100.

      • Daf

        lol Fantastic name for “the issue”.
        Well done sir/madam. 🙂

  • Anonymous

    why are people freaking out about this and not about the lack of actual 200mm

    • ebraun

      “…lack of actual 200mm” is a very misleading statement since it is only true regarding the magnification when focusing on relatively close subjects.

  • Dweeb

    I know if I wanted to prevent light reflections I’d paint something silver. That’s a pretty good spin. Tell it to the guy on Flickr that has particles on his element. So Nikon rejected the parts with “pores” or kept them just for you? If these people were credible they would have machined the part after casting. Not like they passed along the cost savings. How many hundreds did they jack the price? Lord Nikon has spoken, so I guess that’s good enough for the fanboys.

  • Anonymous

    Too bad for the people without stuff on the threading. They don’t have a flange that prevents light reflection inside the lens. We had it all backwards.

    • another anonymous

      yes yes yes, they shoudn’t make such difference between us! or is it some new feature for NPS buyers?

  • If I remember right, the AF-S 24-70 had the same “OMG”-thing when it was released… little “flakes” inside the lens…

    • JON

      admin, did you remember this as well? thanks.

    • Dweeb

      OMG really? And I was only worried about the zoom grinding. I’ll have to have a look.

  • JON

    admin, you said your copy does not have the “thread pleeing” probelm. do you think you can post pictures of yours? thanks a bunch. you’re the best. this site is very informative and alert. again, thanks.

    • another anonymous


    • Jon, here are 2 quick shots of mine – I took them with a P&S camera (could not hold the lens and a DSLR at the same time), so the images are blurry, but you can clearly see that the “thread” is fine:

      I can try to get better shots later tonight.

      • JON

        it is clear enough mr. admin. no need to get any better shots.

        very clean threads..nothing like mine or the sample pics from others.

        thanks. keep up the good work.

      • jay

        you lucky … where did you get yours?

      • nuworld

        wow… now that looks amazing! Wish ours did. I repurchased and sending back my defect version. Hope i get a good one otherwise I may just go with the previous version.

        • jon

          let us kno wth eoutcome ok..also the affected lens S/N and new S/N..and where did you get it if new lens is good. best of luck.

          • nuworld

            I sure will jon. Here is my original s/n 200112xx. I also posted an image of the defect version at this flickr stream. The new lense arrives tomorrow so first thing I will do is take some snaps and send to the stream plus update here.

          • nuworld

            New lense in hand and appears to be much better although still has a few specs. No where near s/n 200112xx. The new lense s/n is 200225xx. Both lenses purchased through amazon. I will try and get an image up but having a heck of a time getting the angle to show the cleaner threads. I will keep watch and see if it worsens.

          • nuworld

            Image of both the original with the defect and the newly arrived with minial specs. Not perfect but tolerable and I’ll keep an eye and see if it worsens. I’ll update.

  • tim

    Let me sum this up:

    SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED! I do not care about the casting… 100€lenses don’t have plastic casting problems! Nikon should offer some compensation for this! Like half off the new 18MP D900, 1080p 100fps video, with integrated VR that works with all lenses and works even better with VR lenses! 🙂

  • Ubiquitous

    Mr. Admin:

    There is something very wrong with your 70-200 VR II copy, because in the flange there are not some very small holes, closest to the “pores” that occurs natulig during a casting process because of the fine print of the foam used in molding the forms. You should return your lens to get one with the charming “holes.” 🙂

    • WoutK89

      Is it me, or is: “natulig”, naturally in English? (Natuurlijk in Dutch, Naturlich in German)

      • you’re right! but it’s spelled ‘naturlig’ in norwegian 😉

        • WoutK89

          So that’s why Google Translate, left it in there 😛

  • Jumob

    I filed an online case with Nikon USA and got a stupid canned reply (it talks about a camera though I had picked Lens and the model from the dropdowns):

    We are sorry to learn of the problem you have experienced with your Nikon camera. If you do not have any options with the dealer, we advise to send it to our factory service center at the address below for evaluation by our technical staff.

    Nikon Inc.
    Photo Service Dept.
    1300 Walt Whitman Road
    Melville, NY 11747

    Please include a note describing the problem. Also include a copy of the sales receipt. We recommend shipping the product insured via a carrier that provides you with a tracking number. Please enclose the product in a plastic bag and pack it in a sturdy box with several inches of a quality packing material on all sides. Please do not ship the product in its original box, and please send only equipment you wish to have repaired. Keep a record of the model and serial number.

    Thanks for using Nikon products!

    • Dweeb

      LOL they didn’t offer you 200 bucks to stay off the internet instead? I expect every depot will have a different answer until JP circles the wagons with their official ruling. I think taking the amount they jacked the price times two and applying it as a discount towards a D900 would be fair. 😉

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Nikon has chosen to encourage users to go to class action lawsuits because its management has determined its short-term profits are far more important than its brand reputation, that Nikon has worked so hard to achieve in more than 100 years.

    • M!

      Exactly why there is a need for a lawsuit? Is there any performance problem to the lens? Is the lens falling off the camera? Ppl please don’t overblown the situation. The compensation parts are ok funny but lawsuits? Get on with your life and go shoot more photos.

      • fxed

        Hey dude get bent. Don’t act like a pompus ass. Go out and shoot sure as soon as Nikon gets my copy fixed or replaced. If that means a law suit then so be it. It’s no skin off your nose.

        • Anonymous

          show us some picture of you more often you so ciute .anonymous lover !!

          • How and where did you get my picture ?????
            I’m supose to be invisible !!!

            • A Naughty Mouse

              Um… just because you close your eyes does NOT make you invisible!

      • longtimenikonshooter

        Many users reside in the countries where Nikon offer only one-year warranty and request to return lens back. But, Nikon declined their demands. Thus, class action lawsuits can be filed pending on the final word from Nikon Worldwide Headquarters.

      • Resale value = shot

  • Ubiquitous

    There seems to be a pattern emerging. Nikon has released their countries’ affiliates to issue the unofficial non-denial denials, in the hope that the issue would go away with so many pseudo explanations. I really do not see Nikon HQ coming up with a statement regarding this problem. I only hope to be completely wrong, though. In the meantime, Nikon HQ, IMHO, is getting ready to make a Camera and/or lens announcement/s to put this issue in the back burner.

    • SHV

      If Nikon says this is not a problem, then, IMO, they are saying that this now the acceptable quality standard for Nikon products.


  • YYZ research

    maybe the holes on the flange are normal. But what about the particles or flakes that have mine on the, maybe second or third, glass element. The peeled off from somewhere in the manufacturing process, and this is NOT normal.

  • nuworld

    Maybe we can get an image of the actual size of the the screws near the modling imperfections so we can scale the the magnification. Usually molding imperfections are refined in most processes for obvious reasons. From a basic standpoint… Imagine your high school pottery or metals class 😀

  • NikoDoby

    I wish you guys would worry and get this upset over the loss of lives in Haiti !!!

    • What does that have to do with problems in Nikon’s quality control ?
      We have to accept that a billion $ company treat his customers like shit because peoples are dying all over the world ?
      I’m sorry for the people from Haiti and feel very bad, but what we are talking about is very important, it’s about loosing our customer’s rights.
      Years ago, when you was shoping at the photo store, if something was wrong with the item you bought, you just had to bring it back to the store and the photographer was taking care of the issue for you, that was called customer service(….)

      • (…) I ran a photo store for several years and enjoyed the contact and relationship I had with my customers.
        More and more local stores had to close (mine included) because they did not have any support from the “big” photo manufacturers who were selling their products alot cheaper to large retailers.
        Now customers are trated like “sales numbers”, who care about customer service as long the “sales” keep going !
        That is why Nikon will not do anything about the 70-200mm and that’s why you have to wait hours and end up talking to a guy in India when you try to contact Nikon.

      • NikoDoby

        It means that there are more important things to worry about than “flaking foam”! If you are not happy with the lens then return it! Or sell it! Or switch to canon, Pentax, Olympus, or Sony! Every single one of their customers are happy and never complain about anything.

        • STJ

          Returning stuff seems easier in the US than most other places…

        • []V[] i k e

          so you are exactly kind of person who is just American Zombie (youtube). Nikon sells stuff, and must provide services !!!!! I do not think, that selling, returning lens solves the problem. It is cheaply made, if there are 56% problem and 44% without. You are lucky bugger so do not reply to a forum, where people trying to find a solution 😉

          • NikoDoby

            56% ?! So why have ONLY two people ACTUALLY posted pictures of the problem here?

            Post pictures of your lens []v[]ike and share the email of Nikon telling you they won’t do anything to fix it!

            Do not reply to a forum to complain about a lens you don’t even have!

  • Segura

    I thought someone mentioned that they had a brand new one that had no markings and then they zoomed and then it happened. This conflicts with the statement that it is a casting issue with the foam and comes that way brand new.

    My recommendation, take a pic of your lens now, go zoom a few times, and take another picture to see if it gets worse. Better if someone else with a brand new one can check this before zooming for the first time.

    • Neil

      Yeah, if someone says it on the net it MUST be true.

    • Snicker

      Not true, I’ve been using my sample of the lens alot during the last couple of days (after checking it). Not difference what so ever.

    • huh

      my lens has no deterioration even after using it daily since I got it in thanksgiving week. Since learning of this problem, I’ve been keeping an eye on it and obeserve no noticeable degradation of the internal parts. Unless the issue happens at a scale where a microscope is needed, I see no evidence that it gets worse over time.

  • Segura

    “john Posted January 12, 2010 at 1:55 am
    Mine was perfectly clean when I bought it. It began when I use the zoom. It took 300 pictures to see those particle. More use zoom, more particle comes.”

    • Snicker

      Based on this “mass hysteria”, if you try to see a pink elephant flying; you probably will se one eventually 😉

    • Lolly

      His brand new 70-200 VRII is depreciating in value as the particles appear … how many pros will accept this ‘normal wear and tear’ and will Nikon properly address this issue before the pros become frustrated ?

  • Anonymous

    Would the ‘holes’ make it go faster? I remember Homer Simpson putting speed ‘holes’ in his and Flanders car.

    • Snicker

      It’s probably a “special” production-mode that makes the lens go f/2.7 😉

  • getanalogue

    it’s a shame – they are trying to say customers are stupid. If there are bits and pieces within a new lens, the lens is defective. Sue a law case, Nikon will pay a lot of money to you!

  • Snicker

    Suggestion for all you “mass-hysteria” people. Try using the lens connected to any Nikon DSLR, it’s a fantastic experience compared to looking at it using a flashlight.

    • Anonymous

      what? actually USE the lens? I don’t know, that’s pretty extreme. 🙂

  • Cowbell

    LOL, the fanboys are TOO FUNNY. Nikon, Canon, neither company is perfect. DOn’t put your full faith in a company, a corporation. They don’t care about people, just profits.

    The lens is over $2k, it should be held to a higher standard.

    • A Naughty Mouse

      Take pictures through a roll of toilet paper! It doesn’t cost $2k and image and quality control is excellent! I’ve never had a problem with mine.

    • tim

      I hardly believe people are fanboys. You use equipment form one manufacturer, because changing 15K$ of equipment form one company to the other is not so easy.

  • john

    incrediable! they do not know what is the problem. silver particle reflect the light and surely affect to IQ. are they idiot or just dnial like a politician?

  • inabon

    I had the older version and sold it to buy this one. I never buy the first batches of any product and I think this explains why.

    I hear people say “ah, its ok, just shoot” and I cant believe it. If you pay top price you want top manufacturing. If I buy a Porsche 911 and it has a 1 inch scratch on the dashboard, I will go to the dealership and request the dashboard to be fixed because even if it doesnt affect performance, I know the scratch is there and would think of the damm scratch for years to come.

    I can see Tamron or other off-brands not fixing a situation like this, but Nikon, on their workhorse? nahhhh, I would be very surprised.

  • Anonymous

    bs. too lazy to fix it.

  • Meh

    What a bunch of BS…Nikon do you hear me ?. It’s a defect…don’t come with some lame excuse!!!!.

  • SHV

    Hmmm..Just a minor problem with a “light baffle”….I just looked again, with the
    lens in the 70mm zoom position and the central lens compartment , not associated with the “baffle”, also has a few “dings” and silver particulates in that chamber.


  • JON

    that’s it..i am returning mine back..just don’t want to deal with nikon warranty and stuff…but i will get it later when nikon has fixed the manufacturing issue..

    like someone commented earlier,..this a “ferrari” / toy for me and not a “working truck” / regular tool to make my living so i like a perfect one…

  • PHB

    I seem to remember the Canon board making a similar complaint concerning the backfocus issue on the fast primes.

    • low

      aww man, this is just a drop in the bucket for nikon. canon’s got some pretty funky issues for a good percentage of their lenses…

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Comparing the inspection reports given by Nikon (Norway) and Nikon (Beijing), I find at least one of them is either lying or not knowing the truth.

    Here is what Nikon Being states, “Maintenance Performed: After inspection, thread of the lens submitted indeed has certain peeling. However, that is normal when the surface of that metal was manufactured. Therefore, the alleged problem will not affect the len’s performance, rigidness, or function.”

    Nikon Beijing says metal while Nikon Norway says foam.

    • STJ

      That is cool, they don’t even know what is in their lenses… Makes me really warm inside… 🙂

  • coconutman

    Seems like there’re new patents filed somewhere on the net 😀 Maybe we can expect something soon…

  • Ronan

    I like how everyone is freaking out on a UNOFFICIAL response from Nikon NORWAY.


    Calm down, and let Nikon do their things. You won’t be dissapointed.

    • STJ

      I hope you are right…

  • iamnomad

    Nikon’s range is way out of control:
    Nikon stuff = fair to excellent.
    Customer relations = poor.
    Customer service = abysmal.
    Customer support = Comcast.

  • Ken Rockwell

    LOL I <3 Canon

    • low

      and all their QC issues =)

  • The Norway response seems to be conflating the little holes with the problem shown in the photos on this site. So, the little holes may well be just part of the manufacture, but that’s really not the question / issue that Nikon is being asked to address. I looked at mine again tonight and still do not see any issue in my copy. I have to add that I’m thrilled with the images from the new 70-200 so far. The VR is better, the bokeh is better (and I loved the performance of the VR I in that respect), the across the lens sharpness is excellent, and I prefer the ergonomics over the VR I. I hope this gets addressed for folks with problems because otherwise, this is an outstanding lens optically.

  • Jodhpur Singpeet

    Mine is being having the problem too. I cannot return to shop as it is closes with permanancy for the economy and i tried to shine light with candle like guru expert Mr Rockwell suggests and some of the sticky hot juice from candle has fallen onto glass part of lens and wont come back. I am being spoke to use a very sharp knife to little bit move and push the sticky hot juice from the candle flame back from glass. Would this be working do you tell? Some one spoke that I should put the lens in a ice box first to make the lens hard but how would this be helping?

    • Nau

      sorry I just loled at that

    • STJ

      Ha ha ha! (Sorry). Boiling / hot water can help get wax off things, but be carefull not to scratch the glass(if you apply with a cloth or similar), nor get any water inside the lens.. Don’t use a sharp knife – that is bound to be a disaster…

  • John J

    For those who say “relax” you might think differently if you saw this inside your new $2.4K lens:

    Serial: 200076XX

    • Ronan

      $2400 isn’t a lot, so yes relax.

      Iv had issues with $6000 glass and even more. Heck our Hassy was acting up before the holidays, which is a lot more than $2400.

      So yes relax.

    • Hi John

      Mine is exactly the same – but with a large metallic flake on the front glass of the zooming elements – and I paid over 3K AU …..

      Great lens – poor finish.

    • benS

      OMG ! i feel your pain bro ! NO one deserves that happening to him.

      Nikon Japan, will u speakup ! Im tired of hearing that ” this is normal ” and that ” it wont affect lens pefromance, etc ” BS ! Then why are we told that we need to keep our lenses / camera sensors clean ?

      After Nano coat, Nikon has come up with the biggest breakthrough in lenses called Zero Quality Control. I bet all the other camera makers are drooling in envy !

      • []V[] i k e

        LOL agree with you. I want same service from Nikon as I get from Apple.

        -NR we should make something like (when Time Capsule died 😉 hundreds of people registered with serial numbers and hey it worked, all was replaced.

        Nikon must replace it. The value of this lens is gone.

  • Ubiquitous


    Wow! That is bad! I never thought it would be this awful. (there is no other word to describe it.)

  • low

    can someone post an image from a “bad” lens that shows these particles affecting the photo? BIG thanks!

  • SHV

    For those who say “relax” you might think differently if you saw this inside your new $2.4K lens:
    Mine isn’t quite that bad but close. Most of the “metallic” dust is in a chamber that is unrelated to the “thread” problem. My day is looking up however, I just learned that the Amazon return for holiday purchases extends to Jan 31, ’10. I just finished printing up the return labels and it’s going back in the AM. Whew!! ! was past the usual 30 return window and I thought I was screwed. Yea…


    • []V[] i k e

      Lucky you 😉

  • John J

    Ubiquitous: indeed. I would be waiting right now before I purchased one if I hadnt already.

    low: Think resale value, not image quality.

    SHV: Good for you, man. I got mine from Adorama, which has a 14 day return policy (long since past). 🙁

    • JON

      many reputable online sellers extended their RMA window for the holiday season. i also got my free get out of jail card with it.
      if returning is your option, try talking to adorama about it. good luck.

  • john

    To be honest if I didn’t own this I wouldn’t even bother reading about it. I mainly want d900 news. Aside from the fact that I always get a green flare whenever there’s a light source in low light frame, I was happy with the lens. I saw this thread problem and it bugs me. I know it doesn’t affect image quality, but none of my other zooms have this. I’m still able to return so I probably will.
    Please spare me the “just go shoot instead of whining on the internet” or “If it shoots fine just use it and be happy”. I like shooting but I also love gear and the industrial design aspect. I’m anal about my gear. Its why I use Nikon instead of Canon when there are plenty of good things canon has going for it. I use the lens as a tool but also I appreciate it as a crafted work of art. I’m one of those guys that loves his tools. I’ll use a certain brand and model of my baseball glove, car, anything. If I use a pencil its got to be a rotring 600 gold retractable. Is it going to draw any better no, but each time I hold it in my hands I love it and I know that Its not the tool if something goes wrong. I’m fiercely loyal to my brands because I feel they are the best and when I buy them I know I’ll get the best possible product available. I could care less about the 2400.00. It will bother me knowing that somebody else has a lens without this crap in it. I must have one of those.

    • john

      what makes so sure it will not affect IQ. those little shiny particles reflect the light just got through the lens barrel like twinkle little stars. you need to think again why you clean your lens surface all the time. dudd.

    • Philippe


  • Nikonmonster

    The nikon 70-200 vr2 is only about 160mm not 200mm like they claim.

    • only when zoomed close, like many other lenses

      • hmm

        my 200mm vr f2 is further than 70-200mm vr2 at 200mm.

      • another anonymous

        what does it mean “only when zoomed close”? do you mean when zoomed at 200m and focusing at minimal distance?

        • Nikonmonster

          Not minimum distance.
          The reach if you put 18-200 at 200mm the image is close than the 70-200 vr 2 set at 200mm.

          • Nikonfan

            huh? So that means 70-200mm VRII is not a 200mm at all !??!!?!?!?!? Sounds unbelievable to me ! Have anyone have the sample compare about this lens and the prime? Any tread like this ?


  • john

    Nikon likely say it will not affect IQ. Matter of fact, it will affect IQ. It is matter about how much. Think about you allways cleans your lens for better pictures not for the cosmetic. Nikon will denial because it is not easy to clean all the mess inside of lens barrel. They have to take invidividual elements and wipe them out amnually. it seems the job is harder than constructing a new lens. Only solution is recalling this lens and replace them with newly manufactured lens. If they say it is nothing they can do about it, I will use my lawyer. I have one who wanted to involve this kind of case. He only charge upon collecting the money for his clients.
    because, we are not talking about a few hundred dollars cheapo lens here.

    • camerausercollector

      Honestly Nikon Norway or Beijing should wait for Nikon Japan to make statement, now they have conflicting statement which undoubtedly covering things poorly. This lens is made in Japan and probably designed in Japan as well and not manufactured in Norway nor Beijing. It appear that none of those site even bother to open the lens when the inspection and maintenance was performed. Nikon Japan we have faith in you. Please put things back in order. Peace!

      • another anonymous

        I want to buy that lens, but in the same build quality as is my first version 70-200 vr… Please put it in order Nikon Japan, I don’t want to sell my nikon gear so far. … Instead of buying this lens and d700 successor. In any form, I trust you do.

  • chuck

    if this threading is a feature of the manufacturing, why is it appear only on the deeper threads? All the pictures I’ve seen and the copies I’ve seen the upper ones are fine, perfect. Smells like they are hiding something. May be right not effect IQ, but its a defect.

    Nikon this sucks, get your act togather and get some balls and stand up like a man

  • Simon

    You don’t get this lack of QC problem with Canon L lens.

    • another anonymous

      me too, I didn’t buy canon and i’m still happy with my selection – all my nikon gear perform very well

  • Daf

    He he he ….. they said “flange”……

    I think prize should go to fugue137 for dinding the best name for “the issue” : “flakeyflange(tm)”

  • Nikon Lover

    I have a new Nikon 70-200 and paid $2400. When I checked my threads, I found three jelly beans inside the barrel! They dont block the initerior operation so they dont affect my pictures so I dont care. Sure they roll around and make noise… and I guess in the heat thye may melt and cause issues.. but I am fine now so Im not worried! I just care about pics and not equipment!! They arent related right?

  • What I really like is the following statement from Nikon “They also look bigger than they really are, due to the magnification of the front lens element.”

    I’m thinking of someone looking through a microscope and observing viruses or bacteria: “Oh, there is no problem with them! Look, in reality they are so small and only appearing because you magnified them.”

    That’s just BS, sorry. I would be really disappointed paying 2k Euros for a lens with such obvious flaws, weaether it’s affecting IQ or not.

    • Daf

      Ha yeah – the “look bigger than they really are” made me chuckle too. As if that makes a flakey lens Ok.

  • Back to top