That photo shows the rough casting on the light baffle. Not the 'silver specks'. While the casting defects show a rather cavalier attitude towards casting quality, it should not affect the lens since it is neither in the light path nor structural.
The silver specks, on the other hand, do not seem to be addressed by Nikon as of yet and are much more concerning.
Having TWO significant issues (even in largely cosmetic) in a new, flagship lens is not a sign that Nikon is taking QA seriously.
rbranan wrote:
reminds me of canon---kept saying the Mark III focused just fine--then there where the yellow and other color stickers.
we need rob galbraith to get to the bottom of this...
If the lens wouldn't take a picture then this might be true, but no one has said that this "event" has prevented them from getting their image.
monochrome...you are right. however, don't you think this is a relatively easy thing for nikon to fix via a production change order? my guess is they will very shortly and since the lens works optically, never caught it in their QA procedure. now that there are us internet gremlins complaining, not to mention their service department getting inquires, it should cause them to look inside their product for the problem. bet anything it gets fixed real fast--even if it is only a cosmetic issue. until they spec out a new internal part (s) and supplier, service will have their hands tied. so we will get into pre and post fix serial number watching....whatever.
Wow,I am so happy that I located this thread. I just purchased the lens and was having some flare issues so did an internet search & this thread popped up so I took a look inside my lens and although I had only used it once-sure enough-Silver Flaking all inside when viewed w/a flashlight as per your suggestions-I called the camera store & they were going to refuse to return the lens and if they did an exchange charge me a 15% restocking fee so I almost caved and just decided that I hoped that Nikon was right and that there would be no long term problems with image quality but decided to pick up the phone and give the shop one more HARD try at a refund and they approved it's return!
While I am relieved to not have the stress/worry now I am disappointed to not have this amazing lens and am back to my old 18-200VR until Nikon fixes the problem!
But seriously, I think it is just shiny spots on the baffling on some of the material coating the interior of the lens. It isn't really on the glass, if it looks like it is, look closer, it is just an illusion from reflections on the elements.
That's what I gathered from these threads, from several months ago at least, I don't own one.
That said, if your not comfortable with it, and the dealer lets you return it, may as well I guess.
Or just send the lens to me. I will gladly send you my Sigma non v-r in exchange. One warning. The Sigma is sharp, but has no flaking inside. The owner is plenty flaky though.
I give up. FrenchTwist... glad you feel that a non-issue causing you to return one of Nikon's most impressive lenses makes you feel better.
Am I the only one who just wishes they could avoid threads like this knowing full well how amazing the lens is? I understand people that legitimately feel the breathing issue could cause them some concern provided they are educated on exactly what the "issue" is... and there are some - like Christian - who may be in this boat. I suspect most are not. But this whole overreaction to rough internal surfaces - especially by people who either have never USED the lens, or don't understand exactly what the phenomina really is / isn't - just kills me.
I have a few lenses I am VERY impressed with. The 24-70, the 70-200VR2, the 300/f2.8VR, and the Siggy 150. That is high company, and I can't say the 70-200VR2 isn't the best of them. If you are honestly going to avoid this lens because of the mass hysteria machine, it's really too bad for you.
extendedpuppet-I think you are probably right but was just so nervous that 2-3 years down the line it would be a real disaster and since it is not the Norm for a new lens to have a problem like this just felt that I would rather wait and see how it plays out. I am now looking for a new lens though-any thread suggestions that are talking up the best ones?
Ha-ha runamuck I might have taken you up on that deal before I returned it!
dj dunzie wrote:
I give up. FrenchTwist... glad you feel that a non-issue causing you to return one of Nikon's most impressive lenses makes you feel better.
Am I the only one who just wishes they could avoid threads like this knowing full well how amazing the lens is? I understand people that legitimately feel the breathing issue could cause them some concern provided they are educated on exactly what the "issue" is... and there are some - like Christian - who may be in this boat. I suspect most are not. But this whole overreaction to rough internal surfaces - especially by people who either have never USED the lens, or don't understand exactly what the phenomina really is / isn't - just kills me.
I have a few lenses I am VERY impressed with. The 24-70, the 70-200VR2, the 300/f2.8VR, and the Siggy 150. That is high company, and I can't say the 70-200VR2 isn't the best of them. If you are honestly going to avoid this lens because of the mass hysteria machine, it's really too bad for you....Show more →
You can avoid these threads, just don't click em. But I agree with you. It appears to not affect performance, so it really is a non-issue. I buy my lenses to USE them, not to baby them and keep them looking brand new for better resale in a year. If its fine optically that is what matters. I understand the "I paid xxx amount so it should be flawless" mentality, but the lens is gonna get dusty and get a few scratches here and there anyways unless you always baby the hell out of it. So whats a rough internal surface gonna change... especially if its known to be a non-issue for performance? Not a dang thing. lol.
I disagree dj dunzle-I am not going to avoid the lens forever and feel much better to let time tell if it was a good decision or not-I would prefer now that it is not my 2300 bucks on the line that may be lost to just sit back & observe how it plays out-I will just stick w/my current lenses/primes (85mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/12-24mm 1.4/35mm/60 macro & the lowly 18-200)and when the (if the) d700 update is released buy the 70-200 again in a package deal or some scenario like that.
Really,don't worry your pretty little head about my decision with this "Non-Issue" and just drop me a line in 3-4 years when you are ready to sell yours and let me know if it held it's value or not-I just did not want to take a chance!
The owner is plenty flaky though.
But I agree with you. It appears to not affect performance, so it really is a non-issue. I buy my lenses to USE them, not to baby them and keep them looking brand new for better resale in a year. If its fine optically that is what matters. I understand the "I paid xxx amount so it should be flawless" mentality, but the lens is gonna get dusty and get a few scratches here and there anyways unless you always baby the hell out of it. So whats a rough internal surface gonna change... especially if its known to be a non-issue for performance? Not a dang thing. lol.