Official response from Nikon on the 70-200mm internal lens surface

I said already that I will not cover this issue anymore, unless there is an official word from Nikon. The official word came yesterday from Nikon Europe:

"The 70-200mm f/2.8G ED AF-S VRII lens features a component in the lens design which may appear to have surface pits or a rough texture when viewed through the front lens element.  This rough surface appears in a very small confined area within the lens barrel and is caused by air holes remaining in the metal portion of the lens during component construction.  Due to the magnifying effect of the front element this rough surface will appear greatly enlarged when viewed through the front of the lens.

This components function is to reduce and remove internal reflections from the lens and due to this the texture of the surface will have no effect on the lenses performance or operation. Nikon would like to assure customers that the lenses optical performance remains unchanged and that this component will not release any dust or particles into the lens itself."

Everyone can relax now! If you have returned your lens, you can buy it back directly from Amazon for 2368,98, free shipping.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • D40-owner

    Let the bashing begin! To be honest, i think lucky 70-200 VRII owners should be a lot more worried about the dust problem than the baffle imperfections.

    • STJ

      Ok lets see – there seems to be two “problems” with the lens:
      A.) Small holes in the barrel
      B.) Flakes
      For “A” Nikon states it’s a process related thing and – that’s just the way it is-zero effect on performance now & ever. This does sound quite belivable to me, after all magnesium castings will never look like a mirror.
      For “B” Nikon has not “officially” said anything. How hard can it be to find out if its an 1) enlarged reflection of the lens sides that has zero impact on anything or 2) they are real metallic flakes that move around on the lens elements? Lets make a poll 😉

      • GlobalGuy

        1.) The holes ARE manufacturing holes — its very evident — and ARE NOT a problem. My lens has some and it works great, and will always work great unless some real problem occurs. People are being paranoid who worry about manufacturing contacts. Its like saying metal contacts are imperfect because they are blobs — well, thats what heating metal does to metal, it melts it! Likewise, machining results in some small defects in metals.

        2.) The dust is a REAL issue (with SOME lenses). There might be a rare case of it being machining debrie (prove it) — but most of it is poor factory conditions or laborers not cleaning after each assembled piece. Personally, my first lens had a lot of dust — it was NOT machining dust. It might have originated from the factory, however, but it was regular dust, and the chunky nature of it was due to sloppy assembly/poor quality control of dust.

        These are two separate issues. The individual who has both of them has a right to feel disconcerted and irritated. But the good news is, if your lens had dust in it before you bought, you could have checked for that and sent it back. If there is a bunch of dust, you should still have it cleaned or worked on. If your lens just had machining grooves and pits, then there is no issue. Seriously.

  • cool so i can buy it without any fear of a failing lens
    Only have to find a sponsor 😉

  • Ken Rockwell

    I will have to pick up this lens with a D700 when I sell my Canon gear.

    • NikoDoby

      Don’t forget to do a flash light test first 🙂

      • STJ

        I thought the 70-200 VRII came packaged with a flashlight these days 😉

        • GlobalGuy

          $30 discount already — you can buy a pretty good flash light with those savings! 😉 😉

    • Lolly

      What about your D40 … you prefer full-frame now ?

  • If anyone will ever answer my question, it is:

    I don’t care about the estetic thing, I want to know if this lens has or produces particles inside its mechanics which can clearly deteriorate, immediately or in the future, zooming, AF and VR.

    On a related issue, if “This components function is to reduce and remove internal reflections” does that mean that is better to buy one lens that is affected more than one that looks perfect?

    I’ll wait for the price to go down a bit more, by the way.

    • Cash

      I returned the lens. yesterday I got the money and I will wait too.

    • Stephen

      What you are seeing is not open to the inside of the lens. It is actually in the lens. It is a set of ridges that are on the edge of the lens element so that internal reflections are minimized. So… think that you lens element has been fitted into the ridge, possible pressed, and in the process some bubbles in the molding were created. Frankly, even if it does cause problems later down the road, Nikon is going to make you right.

  • Jovan

    The grammatical mistakes are a little disturbing for an ‘official’ response. The first sentence of the second paragraph is nearly incoherent. It seems to suggest that the ‘imperfections’ are intended, but that’s unclear. Had you not provided the link, I’d accuse this post of falling into the ‘rumor’ category. Pretty sloppy communication from Nikon. It does not inspire confidence.

    • Ben

      I understood it just fine. Basically they are saying it’s not the shape of the component (rough or smooth doesn’t matter) that is reducing internal reflections, it’s something else such as the color of the material or the type of material that is reducing the internal reflections. Therefore the pits don’t make any difference.

    • Made perfect sense to me as well. They forgot an apostrophe and a comma, but given that there’s a probability that it might’ve been written by someone who wasn’t a native English speaker, I’d say they did fairly well. Should it have been better or more easily understandable? Perhaps. I got it, though. And I’m not exactly a rocket scientist.

      Haven’t had any panic attacks like some of the other VRII owners. I’ve got complaints, but they have nothing to do w/ exaggerated thread problems.

    • Yea, I noticed that, too. I found it pretty sketchy. There are at least two significant possession errors. It’s a bad sign if an engineer is correcting the official releases from a major company. Come on, Nikon. It makes the company look stupid.

  • Julian Phillips

    At least they maintain a consistent standard – both on the manufacture of their lenses and in their communications (both are full of holes 😉

    • Ronan


  • Torben

    It will be work fine, shut up and shoot…..

    • STJ

      What if some people actually prefer to do the flashlight thing instead of taking pictures! This is a whole secondary use of a new lens, people should be happy 😉

    • John Dough

      But what it, down the road, it gets worse? What if the lens is NOT as well-sealed as they are presenting? This is a $2400 purchase and should be on par with other pro lenses which do NOT have this issue. I returned mine and will be waiting this out for now. Yes, the pictures I took look great, yet this is not some small issue to many. I am sure, if a lens is getting worse, Nikon will help you out, but do you buy anything on the high end of price and have expectations that it will be “almost” what you want?

      • Lolly

        … or hope it will be fixed right later ?

  • huh

    so are they going to service the samples affected with bubbles now that they have admitted to it? they are beign vague.

  • shivaswrath

    eh. . . .at least the price came down a little on amazon due to the mess!

    • I’m sayin!

      I’m not in a hurry since I’m happy with my V1, but I sure am pleased at the job y’all are doing at making this lens bird like–CHEEEEP! : D

      Can y’all get to work findin some flaws in the D3X, while I go out and shoot? kthanks.

      • another anonymous

        😉 yes, i also want to switch from VR to VRII, but if such products will be too cheap we will be happy for a while, butt future development would be cheaper, not? i think it will wait for us there

        • another anonymous

          i assume it’s better to push to highr quality then lower price

  • Cash

    This is not an official response!!!!!!!!!! This is just an answer to a question in their help desk. I do not SHOP. I would like to know about the new SLR !!!

  • suegear

    what about the flakes or shiny particles? are they corn flakes or ufo inside of the lens then?

    • Anonymous

      “are they corn flakes or ufo inside my head then?” <- fixed that for you.

      And to that yes, they are.

  • Was the pictures taken with a 70-200mm ?
    I can see some imperfections :o)

  • WhatdoIknow?

    The 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is selling for 2159.96 shipped free from

    They are an authorized Nikon dealer.

    • Lolly

      Of course … shipped free with ‘bubbles’ inside 😀

    • no

      check this first before you order from them:
      not really bad, but not worth the $200

      • WhatdoIknow?

        They aren’t a NY chop shop if thats what you’re implying. Plenty of positive store reviews on pricegrabber. These guys are legit.

  • low

    rejoice! this lens produces good pictures again@

    • STJ

      At least if you shine on it with a flashlight 😉

    • suegear

      you do not own this lens. i know it.

  • Martin

    If the lens is flaky then clean it with Head & Shoulders. That should do it!!

    I’d like to revisit this issue in a year from now. I bet you a Tim Horton’s coffee that this will not be a problem. They’ll fix whatever manufacturing flaw without mentioning it to anyone.

    Admin, you should set a reminder in your calendar so we can talk about this next year….Jan 21st 2011. Then we can ask Nikon why the “air holes” have all of the sudden disappeared. I’d love to hear their answer..

  • Seems to me the main problem with this lens is people are looking through the wrong end! Seriously, what do photos taken with the lens look like? That’s the big question. If anyone has one of these lenses and finds the ‘defect’ to be a problem, I’ll be more than happy to receive shipment and relieve you of this ‘problem.’

    • Ronan

      The ‘defect’ doesn’t affect anything on the lens.

    • We need a meme of someone lookin through the wrong end of the lens sayin: IT’S GOT FLAYX!

  • Chuck

    LOL, after weeks this is the response, LOL. Nikon what a pile of BS. It is true may not measurably effect the picture quality, nor will the flakes. But the fact that many copies seem to be floating out there that are perfect and have no or uniform internal flakes says you got a mnaufacturing reliability problem. You will try and likely successfuly convince the comunity that it is a non issue and not have to absorb all the rreturns and scrap about 40,000 unit inventory to sell cheap. But I promise you that by serial # 50xxx all the baffles will be perfect as well the internal speckle uniformity. THose that have the old copies and try to resell in 5 years will get lower price!

    • low

      i dont think nikon cares about the used market. the consumers make up these ridiculous re-sale prices themselves. if i decide to pickup another as a backup, id surely be looking for one that has an “issue” and anything < 50xxx ;).

      Thanks to the (unnecessary) panic/outcry, this can potentially save many a hundred bucks or so!!! 😀

    • Patric

      I think the same Chuck,

      the only Problem will be a eventual reselling price…..

      and i am also interested about why some of theme are perfect and some not……

  • Chuck

    THis isn’t a officila response from mother nikon. This is the european response, I got the samething similar from the US, and its similar to what was posted from the China last week. At lest mother nikon got children all singing the same tune.

  • akenathon

    BULL SHIT !!!

    TYPICAL words to try to reassure little sheep’s minds. But does Nikon take any risk in the letter : NO !!! do they say they would provide a free repair if the lens is’nt under warranty anymore : NO !!! . just maniplulation words that everyone wants to hear before going to sleep.

    • STJ

      It just might be – that they are right… 😉

      • akenathon

        – “what’s your name ?”
        – “my name is John”
        -“No, your name is Jack !”
        -“… you are surely right, my name is Jack…”
        -“what we tell you is the right thing, always…”

        Poor litlle sheeps read the most stupid child’s book ever created : the bible. (michael Bibbele was the 1st autor, no he sings christmass songs)

        • low

          and you believe nikon produces the best cameras, lenses and altogether…images. poor sheep!

          • akenathon

            & you see shiny particles believing it’s an act of “god” which means “Dildo” in europe

          • suegear

            you are working for nikon. you are nor a photographer.

  • Here is what my wife told me last night:
    D600 FX 12mp
    D900 FX 24mp
    I always believe what my wife say, except when it’s about her mother.

    • The visible man.

      Do they have shiny particles in them too?

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Hi Admin,

    Can you post a poll that measures how many returned vs how many keep theirs?

    another poll that how many will buy in 6 month, 6-month or more?

    • I have to see how this will fit here – I did state that I will not cover this issue any longer.

  • Cowbell

    A $2000 plus lens should not have such an obvious defect. If you accept this than you accept LOWER STANDARDS than what Nikon is having you pay for.

  • jon

    pheeewwww…i can rebuy it and not worry about the pits anymore regarless the dust and all. thanks nikon..

  • Martin

    Holy crap. Look at the air hole in this lens!!!

    Explain this Nikon!!!

    Click here

  • Cowbell

    Translation from Nikon: You pay us $2,000 and SHUT UP AND YOU LIKE WHAT WE GIVE YOU AND YOU LIKE IT YOU SLUGS!

    • akenathon

      exactly. looks like they inspired their answer from the “mars attacks” movie : “a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a- we -owned -ya-a-a-a- !!! “

  • Good to hear this, I’ll buy one with confidence then even if it has “imperfections”

  • Tim

    I am personally not bothered by the tiny gaps in the light baffle ring and I accept Nikon’s explanation of the irregularities seen in it. My lens had these. They have yet to address the many highly reflective “sparkly” bits that were on the inside lens barrel cylinder wall and near one of the lens element mounting points in my lens. Because of this I sent my lens back. I don’t know what they were or how they could effect lens performance, but until Nikon addresses this issue I will withhold my reorder. An no, I am not hysterical, I’m just conservative when it comes to spending $2400 on a camera lens and I need an honest and detailed answer first.

    • aetas

      Great response. Im waiting till this all settles out. These people that just believe anything nikon says are crazy. If Nikon wants me to by a lens for 2000+ and there is anything I can see wrong with it, then i want to hear that If this (dust, particals, bits, whatever you want to call them) is not a problem then they will cover any reapair needed down the road due to it.

      • aetas

        that last comment had worse grammar/spelling then a nikon response. sorry

  • Anonymous

    I for one feel much better about this issue after reading this response

  • Cowbell

    Yes Nikon, I love you and will take any excuse you give me. I love you so much Nikon that I will name myself Nikonian. I love you so much Nikon that I should never question anything you do. I love you I love you!

    Funny how corporations get away withy things due to fanboys being content and never questioning the brand they are loyal too.

  • Steve

    Have all of you who are complaining gone and done the ‘flashlight’ test to all their other lenses, and noticed how every lens has dust in it? Why is that now an issue?

    • STJ

      It’s the new trend. If you’re not out taking pictures you can now sit in front of your PC aiming a flashlight at your lenses and write about it with your fellow “flashers” 😉

  • Grumpy

    Nikon says “It’s not US, it’s YOU!”. So, this is how they made the lens lighter!. Imagine the weight if they hadnn’t……

    • jay

      That would be true if Nikon states that all the future new lenses will still have the same manufacture defects.

      So, if new lenses are somehow magically without these problems, we will have major resale problems.

  • low

    the ones complaining dont own the lens.

    • Grumpy

      Maybe because they demand Nikon quality??????

      • akenathon

        the ones who own the lens bury their head in the sand.

        • low

          and take photos with a perfectly GOOD lens. nikon what else is perfect? please tell me, i cant live without you telling me.

          • akenathon

            pray your “god” that it keeps some retail value when the next fixed series will come out. maybe santa will help ya

          • low

            is that why you name yourself after a fictitious want people to think you know what you think you know? 😀 daddy didnt love you did he? or did he love you too much? 😉

  • Ubiquitous

    Official Mercedes – Nepal response regarding the S550 bubbles

    The Mercedes 2009 S550 features a component in the exterior paint composition which may appear to have surface pits or a rough texture (bubbling bubbles) when viewed up close. This rough surface appears in a very small confined area, like the exterior of the car, and is caused by air holes remaining in the metal portion of the car during production and painting process. Due to the magnifying effect of looking at this rough surface up close, it will appear greatly enlarged when viewed by the naked eye under sunlight. At night, this bubbling paint bubbles are barely visible without a flashlight or any kind of reflective light like the moon.

    This components function is to reduce air resistance and increase airflow of the car. The texture of the car surface will have no effect on the car’s performance or operation. Mercedes would like to assure customers that the S550 mechanical performance remains unchanged and that this component will not release any dust or particles into the environment, we think. Nikon will also stand behind our products and we will repair any defective product, if we feel like it.

    • akenathon


      this is the best one I ever red , so true !!!

      Myabe Rolls roice has some “Oil & air bubble issues” inside the motor, which will of course neveeeeeer affect the quality of the crash !!!

    • Neil

      Your analogy is wrong. This “problem” is inside the device not outside. So revise your statement to just say that there might be some surface imperfection on the air intake hose.

  • Co M

    nikon should sue you.
    you started this all mess

    • Ubiquitous

      You give way too much credit; I did not start any of “this mess.” This was started by a website in China and exacerbated by Nikon’s Main HQ inability and/or unwillingness to come out with an official statement, one way or the other.

      • exactly – if you look at my first post, I did link to the Chinese site
        not to mention that Nikonians had a huge thread on this topic
        don’t kill the messenger

    • GlobalGuy

      The labeling of this as a “problem” from the beginning and “defective lenses” was very, very inappropriate. As one who owns the lens, I have said from the beginning — one of my lenses had dust inside (NOT metal dust, just regular factory dust) — the second lens was perfect although may had nicks in the machining grooves (I used a macro lens to check it out), but still PERFECT. There is no issue.

      Calling this a “problem” and “defective lenses” was practically libel.

      When a site is influential, it has a responsibility to remain neutral unless very clear evidence of harmful defects are found. Suggesting “defective lenses” from the beginning was irresponsible. Spider man needs to step in, “With great power comes great responsibility.” 😉

      Anyway, live and learn! The fact of the matter is that Nikon’s manufacturing is not beautiful on the inside of the lens (rarely is everything made aestheticaly pleasing on the INSIDE of any instrument). And there has been a lot of dust in their upper level lenses lately.

      If ANYTHING comes of this — I hope Nikon forces its factories to check for dust more. Because machining bubbles and grooves aside — its pretty ridiculous to get a lens at this price with visible dust inside. Nikon should be ashamed of how their quality control is going. Their reputation is centered on it. Nevertheless, we still must be fair when it comes to machine-worked parts not to freak people out!

      • Chuck

        You ever look in a Piano? Try looking inside a Fazioli or Bosendorfer. You know what little imprefections in the steel plate there don’t impact sound but they are finished beautifully, most of the time unless you peer into the damm thing you don’t see it. All you care about is the sound, they sound magnificient and they look it too.

      • GlobalGuy, this did look like a problem to me at the beginning and that’s why I reported it that way. After Nikon explained it, I did agree with the explanation. I don’t think I did anything wrong by reporting it the way I did, plus every reader can/should make their own judgment. After almost everything on this sites is rumors and should be taken with grain of salt until Nikon puts in on their website.

        • STJ

          Well I posted it on DPreview using the wording “possible problem”, which I believe is more accurate since I did not know if it actually was an issue or not. Anyway I agree with GlobalGuy, “live and learn” – and otherwise thanks for a great site Admin! 🙂

          • I would say it was a rumor that there was a problem. Of course there is always room for improvement 🙂

  • I don’t have a 70-200mm, but mine look ok, I guess I won’t have to return it :o)

  • Zorro

    My 55-200 VR doesn’t have these “problems”. It has great IQ, is smaller and lighter, has a greater zoom ranger, and cost about a tenth of the price.

  • akenathon

    well said. idem for the 70-300mm. some FF users even prefered it to the 1st version of 70-200 VR. you only use some stops for low light use. DOFF is great on both.

  • Dweeb

    That is just a service answer to a question. When the press release appears on Nikon’s Japan site on an official Nikon letterhead pdf I’ll give it a bit more weight. After all, a week ago it was explained as glue – or the rough edges of the element.

    • GlobalGuy

      Because people are “looking for problems”, Nikon needs to respond to all the visible possible causes of rough texture. All of their answers are accurate, depending on what the specific individual is looking at through their lens. Remember, only part of the inside of the lens is in focus and its extremely blurry and you can focus in with a micro lens, but the response is different depending on what you focus on. Nikon has been accurate in its responses. There are NO standard defects on this lens. All of the images are extremely clean. Perhaps there are some lenses with manufacturing dust/factory dust inside. Those ones should be exchanged with the retailer.

  • Chuck

    This is chuck again, I love the hysteria. I am going to return my less than perfect lense and when the price drops for the used ones pick up a used one. Nikon you need to fix this problem.

    BTW love the Mercedes spoof. Nikon your QC is screwed up as is your crisis response team. This is your premier pro lense and you can’t get the message out right!

  • Neil

    As an aside it’s funny that a post of mine got deleted but a much more offensive post remained…

    • your post got deleted because personal offenses are not allowed here

      • Neil

        OK. So now I know the ground rules. I can just be offensive as long as it’s only slightly aimed at someone like certain posters do.

  • Ubiquitous

    Here is my two cents worth and perspective on the controversy. In all honesty, I cannot assert that there is something wrong with the 70-200 VRII. On the other hand, I cannot state categorically that there is nothing wrong with it. In order to do either, I have to open a lens, something I won’t do for obvious reasons. However, a red flag has been raised because of all the issues already documented.

    The ball is in Nikon’s court. All they have to do is for Mama Nikon to issue a statement saying something like: “There is nothing wrong with the lens but minor imperfections. In order to prove that, Nikon is extending the warranty of the lens to 5 years all over the world.” Case closed and the issue fades away!!! However, in the absence of such statement, people are asking themselves: “Why is not Nikon HQ not issuing anything regarding the controversy?

    The lack of response is going to hurt Nikon, in the long run, imho. They are just about, according to rumors, to release some expensive primes and zooms. How many of you, after what we went through with the 70-200 VRII, are going to pre-order any of the new lenses, if they are released? Or any new cameras? I know I won’t and was getting ready to do so. I’ll wait at least six months before pulling the trigger. Can’t Nikon see this scenario looming in the horizon?

    • Neil

      I would pre-order without any hesitation for anything I am interested in.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      The lack of communication on the issues from Nikon Worldwide Den so far has effectively painted a rather negative image of an arrogant multinational that doesn’t believe in customer service and customer relations. Who are those eager customers that pre-order any Nikon professional gear? Are they core of Nikon’s best customers? I am not a businessman nor a marketing guy; however, this is going to cost them imho.

  • Ray

    How come some of the new 70 200 vr2 don’t have this rough texture? It just doesn’t make sense. However it doesn’t mean they are lying about the performance of the lens. But for such a high-end product and clientele the product should be perfect both in performance and appearance. if they try to avoid the concern from consumers they will pay this back in the long run . This is the about principle .

  • Simon

    Would you buy a new car if the paintwork has scratches? Would you buy a new lens if the glass is covered in dust particles? Neither would prevent the product from working but you wouldnt spend money on a new product that looks like its been through abuse.

    • STJ

      Would you not buy a car due to a scratch deep on the inside of the exhaust pipe you can mainly see if shining a flashlight into it positioning your head a few inches over ground 😉

  • townerboy

    Wait a minute. DIDN’T I see particles? Didn’t I see threads flaking? Ok Nikon step up!!! WOW, don’t those particles get into the glass?

    NIKON what da cluck is going on!!! I c the problem and U guys don’t?

  • John

    I don’t know what’s worse.

    Nikon pretending this is all “normal”, “nothing to see here”, “move along”…

    Or Canon getting their arses handed to them in the latest D3s vs. 1DMark4 comparison.

    Talk about burying their collective heads in the sand!

    (And, yes, everyone knows ostriches don’t really bury their heads in the sand, it’s a metaphor, go with it.)

    • STJ

      You ruined my day – I have always believed that the bury their head! 😉

  • I think the whole thing is greatly overrated by some users. Nobody has a defective 70-200 because of this sloppy better quality control (has somebody a broken lens because of this?)

    Ok, it`s not very good from Nikon that there are batches of lenses that are clearly internal inferior looking than the rest. Thats bad quality control. But everybody knows that there is no or minimal (at best) quality control after assembly of the lens (think of front/backfocusing, dust, bad lens mounts, screaky focusing….).

    If its a light reducing baffle it clearly not relevant for the picture quality of the lens. But dust inside the lens is BAD. Its killing your smooth bokeh! Basta!

    Take a unfocused picture with a dusty lens and one with a dustfree lens and in the bokeh (best a point light source) you will see the dust inside the bokeh. And yes normaly Nikons are the best lenses without dust. Better than Canon or Sigma….
    But saddly lenses are not sealed from dust. They may be sealed from the outside mounted on a good body, but if the lens is unmounted there is the probability that dust can enter from the open endelement of the lens (take a 28-70 2.8 as example, wide, wide open backwards! You can see the internal of the lens!). So with time there IS dust inside every lens.

    Look how many pro buy lenses: get maybe ten of the same lens and select the best, then return the rest. It sad that there is so little quality control (cannot be so expensive). But every manufactor uses the customer as quality tester.

    Mit freundlichem Grusse

  • Ok, can we move on that 70-200mm story and talk about the D600 and D900, we are only 2-3 weeks from it.

    • suegear

      d900- minimum 6 months window

  • PJS

    For anyone with the new VRII model that has “defects”, I’ll be glad to trade you straight up for my VRI version just refurbed by Nikon. It’s the image that counts, not how the lens appears…

    • low

      totally agree on this.

  • Martin

    Thom Hogan weighs in on this…dare I say rumor. Nah, let’s call it a problem.

    See “The New 70-200 Controversy”–> here

    • FredFe

      Yes, he did “explain” the problem after Nikon’s official post on their website. Where was his explanation 10 days ago when this whole thing started?

      • low

        th uses this site for info. more power to NR!

      • Martin

        Good point but I think Thom didn’t want to piss anyone off at Nikon. He was probably waiting for the “low down” on this issue. Can’t blame him. He seems to have a few connections at Nikon. Then again, maybe I’m way off here.

  • Another “explanation” straight from Nikon

    In any lens sometimes tiny air holes remain in metal parts during the component production and may appear as rough surface areas on the metal. These marks appear greatly magnified when viewed through the lens under direct illumination but are in fact tiny and completely normal. These marks in no way affect image quality, lens function, performance or any other aspect of the lens. Further, these areas do not create any dust inside the lens.

    Please note lenses are not sealed, so although it is fairly unusual for a brand-new lens to have any dust inside, it is not unheard-of and does not indicate a defect. Dust specks on the internal or external lens surfaces will NOT appear on the photos, since it is literally impossible for the lens to form images of those contaminants on the sensor. Even a lens that is perfectly clean initially will eventually accumulate some dust inside as it is used over time.

    I’m shocked at this response and actually asked for my BRAND NEW lens to be replaced because of the “dust” or flake” in my lens. Nikon responded that it is natural for dust to accumulate in a lens over time…sorry!!

    • Grumpy

      Yes, over time, not over weeks or months!. And especially not a 70-200/f2.8 which is suposed to be a very sealed lens.

  • Back to top