Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,494   Posts: 1,543,005   Online: 765
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    daveandiputra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    192
    And I thought the OP was only complaining about nikon AF lenses build quality.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by daveandiputra View Post
    And I thought the OP was only complaining about nikon AF lenses build quality.

    I can only comment on the lenses I've actually used, other marques may have similar problems. There seems to be an inconsistancy of build quality throughout the Nikon range. I have other Nikon AF's more solidly made than the 35mm f2, like the 20mm & 180mm. that have given no trouble. Also I have a couple of Tokinas in Nikon mount that are not only equal to my Nikons in quality terms, but seem to be of better build quality, raising the question of whether it is worth paying the often considerable extra cost of the camera makers own lenses.

    A lens like the 35mm f2, is liable to be amongst Nikon's most used lenses, so it's surprising there should be build quality and sticky diaphram issues with it...I shall be returning to manual focus lenses in the main from now on.

  3. #13
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,050
    Images
    157
    FOr the record, I have cleaned oily blades from a number of nikon pre-AI, Ai, and AIS lenses.
    The problem with oily blades is that once the helical grease/oil breaksdown or starts travelling from the helical, just cleaning the blades does not solve the problem. The oil will just seep back into the blades. You have to dissasemble everything and clean the old lubricant off completely with a solvent. Then add fresh lubricant and reassemble.

    It is possible that when your lens was serviced, they only cleaned the blades. But depending on the design of the lens, some will be more prone to problems like this anyway. Is the 35mm f2 a fairly compact lens?
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Yes, the 35mm f2 AFD is compact considering its speed, and certainly compared to the much heavier manual 35mm f2AI which I've used for some 25 years with no problem.

  5. #15
    Thingy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    189
    I use an F4 camera (lovely but heavy) and an excellent, silky smooth, 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens that has suffered none of the problems I was warned it was prone to. I am only thinking of buying two AF lenses, the 300mm f4 & 16mm full-frame fisheye - everything else is & will be manual. I do hope those lenses prove to be a bit more robust and reliable than the one you are describing.
    The Thing

    Portfolio

    Film Cameras currently used:
    Large/Stort-format: Ebony 45SU (field camera), Medium/Medlem-format: Mamiya 7, Hasselblad 503CW
    35mm/Små format: Nikon: F4, D800 (yes digital, I know)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Thingy View Post
    I use an F4 camera (lovely but heavy) and an excellent, silky smooth, 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens that has suffered none of the problems I was warned it was prone to. I am only thinking of buying two AF lenses, the 300mm f4 & 16mm full-frame fisheye - everything else is & will be manual. I do hope those lenses prove to be a bit more robust and reliable than the one you are describing.
    Nikon manual focus lenses are very robust with many are still going strong after 40+ years. My oldest lens is a 28/2 AI that is at least 30 years old and it is still smooth as silk. I have a slew of MF Nikkors because I know that they will probably not wear out in my lifetime if I just do the occasional CLA treatment on them. I've bought rough user lenses that have heavy cosmetic damage, stiff aperture rings, etc., but the glass is still great and they produce great images. The modern plasticky lenses would not fare so well, especially the consumer grade stuff.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,426
    Quote Originally Posted by huddy View Post
    Nikon manual focus lenses are very robust with many are still going strong after 40+ years. My oldest lens is a 28/2 AI that is at least 30 years old and it is still smooth as silk. I have a slew of MF Nikkors because I know that they will probably not wear out in my lifetime if I just do the occasional CLA treatment on them. I've bought rough user lenses that have heavy cosmetic damage, stiff aperture rings, etc., but the glass is still great and they produce great images. The modern plasticky lenses would not fare so well, especially the consumer grade stuff.


    My newest Nikkor lens is ca. 1972, oldest about 1966 or 67. They range from one in 98% condition to well used with lots of shiny aluminium on the focus rings. A couple had to be disassembled for new grease. They are all in 100% functional condition, with silky smooth focus and aperture rings.
    The plastic lenses are cheap crap for people who are willing to throw something away instead of having it serviced - they could have been made of metal, and still work in AF mode, but that would have been expensive.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    My newest Nikkor lens is ca. 1972, oldest about 1966 or 67. They range from one in 98% condition to well used with lots of shiny aluminium on the focus rings. A couple had to be disassembled for new grease. They are all in 100% functional condition, with silky smooth focus and aperture rings.
    The plastic lenses are cheap crap for people who are willing to throw something away instead of having it serviced - they could have been made of metal, and still work in AF mode, but that would have been expensive.


    My own experience is that in situations where you could really benefit from autofocus (i.e. very fast moving subjects), it's liable to let you down anyway with imprecise focus. I've now gone back to manually focussing everything....it's how we always used to do it!....with better results.

    I get the feeling AF systems rely on you shooting at f5.6-f8 where most things are going to be infocus anyway. Once you really test the system with fully open aperture settings, the lack of AF precision begins to show.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,426
    That's been my experience with AF as well. I have a little Pentax PHD camera, AF/zoom that actually does a pretty good job at parties and so on, it's the only AF I use. I paid $3 for it with a good battery - which is still in it!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    New nikon lenses fell cheap. It's the name of the game now. I shoot with the 24, 35, and 50mm f/1.4G's and they all feel cheap. I was a little dissapointed when the 24mm f/1.4G had a plastic barrel.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin