Bad 70-200mm VR - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
end

Kari Post
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Bad 70-200mm VR

So I finally got my 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR after chasing the UPS guy around for three days. I was so excited that quickly read through the owner's manual, mounted the lens, and snapped a few shots. The results: HORRIBLE! The images were soft, hazy, and lacked saturation. Hoping it was something else, I lugged the stupid piece of equipment around the Bronx Zoo and ended up using my 70-300mm lens instead. I called B&H and they're going to replace the lens. While I'm a little bummed and wish I had a new lens to play with after much anticipation, I'm hoping the new lens they send will knock me off my feet. I'll also say I was very pleased with the customer service rep I spoke to. I just haven't been having luck with technology lately (I bought a Dell computer a year ago and the DVD burner drive never worked, so after complaining to Dell since January they finally told me I have a failed drive but they won't replace it since my warranty expired at the beginning of this month... then my cell phone died yesterday and when I took it to Verizon I had to pay $53 for a new one because my warranty expired exactly one week ago yesterday

). I have posted comparison photos of the two lenses on my webshots. Feel free to check it out. I'll let you guys know how the replacement lens turns out (cross your fingers for me).

See how the two lenses compare
http://community.webshots.com/album/432590542DUSfTA

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 12:34 AM

thebeephaha
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Bummer, yea Dell service sucks, my laptops sound card died a month after warrenty was up. My ipod died two weeks ago and apple sent me a "new" one but it has worse battery life than the old one.. *sigh*

What ever shall we do with cheapscape companys....

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 12:46 AM

hir0
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Bad 70-200mm VR

ummm, yah that's a very bad copy of the 70-200VR. good luck with your replacement

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 01:06 AM

akreager
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Hang in there - Mine is extraordinarley sharp. I have to really really peak at the pixels to even see a difference between F2.8 and 4.0!!!!!!

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 01:21 AM

Greg Matty
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Bad 70-200mm VR

What f-stop is your rhino shot at with the 70-200VR? I still get some small amount of haziness at f2.8 but Nikon has seen my camera and lens so now I live with it.

Akreager, your copy must be exceptional as many people see a fairly large difference between f2.8 and f 4.0. Glad you got a great one. Mine is merely 9/10th's great.

Greg

Kari Post wrote:
So I finally got my 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR after chasing the UPS guy around for three days. I was so excited that quickly read through the owner's manual, mounted the lens, and snapped a few shots. The results: HORRIBLE! The images were soft, hazy, and lacked saturation. Hoping it was something else, I lugged the stupid piece of equipment around the Bronx Zoo and ended up using my 70-300mm lens instead. I called B&H and they're going to replace the lens.

See how the two lenses compare
http://community.webshots.com/album/432590542DUSfTA

Edited by Greg Matty on Aug 25, 2005 at 02:00 PM GMT

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 03:02 AM

wjlapier
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · Bad 70-200mm VR

akreager wrote:
Hang in there - Mine is extraordinarley sharp. I have to really really peak at the pixels to even see a difference between F2.8 and 4.0!!!!!!

What!!?? A pixel peeper in the Nikon forum? Must be a Canon convert

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 03:56 AM

akreager
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Bad 70-200mm VR

I admit to having a problem. I like to read and compare specs and I like to peak at pixels. I know that makes me a sick puppy, but hey......

At least my partial redemption is I shoot Nikon

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 02:11 PM

HankB
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · Bad 70-200mm VR

It looks like a soft focus filter is on it. Have you checked for grease smears on the front and rear elements? I would also mount and remount the lens on the camera and turn the vr of and on and see if you get any different results.

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 02:14 PM

David R
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Kari,

Sorry to hear about your issue with the lens. Good that you're getting a new one.

I'd call Dell back and tell them that this drive has been bad since day 1 and tell them you want it replaced. Speak to a supervisor. I'm guessing they'll send you a new one if you push a little.

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 02:30 PM

Kari Post
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Thanks for all the feedback you guys. As for the lens, I tried turning off the VR, stopping it down, everything I could think of, and honestly the image quality was just plain horrible. For my comp, I got the same advice from a friend (who has a bachelor's in computer science) and I'm going to do just that.

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 04:46 PM

Kari Post
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Bad 70-200mm VR

So on one more hunch before I went to pack up the lens to ship it back I checked out the protective filter I bought. Turns out HankB was right -- B&H sent me the wrong filter. Actually what B&H sent me was a Nikon Soft filter in a Circular Polarizer case in the Neutral Color/Clear filter package. Something got messed up somewhere. I tried a few test shots of the VR without the filter and it looks okay. Very sharp, better colors, although I didn't have conditions I was really pumped about testing the VR in. Anyway I called B&H back and now I'm exchanging the filter and keeping the lens. Errr. I also called Dell and after a half hour of being transferred and put on hold I was able to convince a supervisor to send me a new drive (although my friend is gonna have to install it because the service warranty is up, good thing I have computer saavy friends). In the end, all looks like it will turn out well, although I still had to shell out extra for that new cell phone and I lost everyone's phone numbers. Oh well... it could be worse.

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 07:54 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Kari Post wrote:
So on one more hunch before I went to pack up the lens to ship it back I checked out the protective filter I bought. Turns out HankB was right -- B&H sent me the wrong filter. Actually what B&H sent me was a Nikon Soft filter in a Circular Polarizer case in the Neutral Color/Clear filter package. Something got messed up somewhere. I tried a few test shots of the VR without the filter and it looks okay. Very sharp, better colors, although I didn't have conditions I was really pumped about testing the VR in. Anyway I called B&H back and now I'm exchanging the filter and keeping the lens. Errr. I also called Dell and after a half hour of being transferred and put on hold I was able to convince a supervisor to send me a new drive (although my friend is gonna have to install it because the service warranty is up, good thing I have computer saavy friends). In the end, all looks like it will turn out well, although I still had to shell out extra for that new cell phone and I lost everyone's phone numbers. Oh well... it could be worse.

Haha.....same sort of thing that happened to jmcfadden

He gets his 70-200, has major issues with it....tries EVERYTHING,......and then removes the UV filter. Hallelujia!

Edited on Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM

Aug 25, 2005 at 08:22 PM

David R
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Bad 70-200mm VR

Hysterical. It looked like a soft focus filter was it because there was one on it!

Glad to hear it was a minor issue and that the lens is fine. And you got a new DVD drive!!!

Aug 25, 2005 at 08:40 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload end