A proper vibration test would have shown this defect during the design phase. They must have skipped these tests. Cutting corners during the R&D phase is not a good sign.
The design is not unique to this lens. Usually they will have thread sealant on them. You added thread lock so you should be good now. Nobody cut corners in R&D possibly someone didn’t do their job during assembly.
You are wasting your time getting angry about it here.
Photon-catcher wrote:
The more I think about it, the more angry I get.
A proper vibration test would have shown this defect during the design phase. They must have skipped these tests. Cutting corners during the R&D phase is not a good sign.
Photon-catcher wrote:
The more I think about it, the more angry I get.
A proper vibration test would have shown this defect during the design phase. They must have skipped these tests. Cutting corners during the R&D phase is not a good sign.
I could also be an out-of-specs charge of screws. Tensile strength of screws is a tricky issue, I don't think it can be reliably determined without a microscope and an ultrasound or similar non-distructive device.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I could also be an out-of-specs charge of screws. Tensile strength of screws is a tricky issue, I don't think it can be reliably determined without a microscope and an ultrasound or similar non-distructive device.
You are absolutely right.
But the strenght of fasteners is related to its diameter. I would not worry if they were 3mm in diameter. But these ones are very small.
I do not have other similar lenses. Can somebody show pictures of the older lenses that use similar connections to the tripod collar. Perhaps we can deduce useful info from older systems. I have not heard of any problems with older systems. If they are the same, my worries could vanish.
It would also be useful if Nikon could show video's of their vibration tests with weibull statistics.
If you google it - appears to be a common issue on both 300 and 500 PF. Tighten the screws with JIS screwdriver and carry on. There are zero reports of screws snapping. I double checked my Z 70-200 - zero play. YMMW.
Yes, according to the pictures, the 500mm PF uses the same system with flimsy screws. When these screws fail, the whole camera/lens drops to the ground regardsless of any third part foot.
The screws are very small (circa 1 mm diameter). They will snap.
As you described it, the screws loosen in place. They did not snap. Those are two different "faults".
I think it was due to poor QC at the factory. Nikon have used four small-ish screws to hold the foot to the lens barrel of their 70-200/2.8 at least since version one.
Sad to hear this. I shoot Nikon and love their products, but their tripod collars/feet leave a lot to be desired. It kind of boggles my mind when I compare my Nikkor feet to the beautiful Arca-swiss rounded foot on the Tamrom 150-600 G2.
I haven't seen any reports reports of those screws failing (and trust me - if someone's 500 PF fell to the ground petapixel and fstoppers would be all over it (not to mention specific youtube stars). 500 PF has been around for ~2 yrs. I'm pretty sure other lenses use similar mounting (don't have my 2.8E to check anymore).
You have two choices - tighten the screws with proper screwdriver or be angry and go through the hassle of getting Nikon to recall all lenses. I'm not sure which route will be more successful. Again - YMMV.
ok i am assuming that you are referring to the 4 screws that attach the slot plate for the foot to the ring.
see first image.
the second image is the screw itself with size reference.
admittedly the screws should not go loose. but they will go no further then the bottom of the slide in portion of the foot as they would bottom out.
as the the strength of these you'd be surprised. the VR VR2 FL an S are essentially the same design. thats a lot of years of usage. during its design and use the only issue that i know of was the plate itself deforming on the VR2 because it was rather thin. RRS created a kit with a beefed up plate and slightly longer screws to to allow for the thicker depth. it never deformed. on the FL it is already more robust.
those included screws on all of those lenses to date have i have never seen fail. i have had each of these up to and still using the FL on my 4 bodies. there is no need to go rocket scientist on them. they've been around.
lukemeup wrote:
You have two choices - tighten the screws with proper screwdriver
I did that with some medium strength locktide.
Apparantly the 500mm PF uses the same system and no failure of these 4 screws have been reported as far as I could research in the last 15 minutes. Now I am less worried that they will fail.
Perhaps I will change the foot to something better. Any suggestions?
nor is there a need to. they aren't snapping unless undo forces is applied and they would tear out the threading first.
this is turning into a ghost hunt.
i am hoping that if he put threadlocker (a dot on each) on the threads he waited for it to set then thread in. this way it would more easily allow them stay in and later to be removed w/o possible damage
sjms wrote:
i am hoping that if he put threadlocker (a dot on each) on the threads he waited for it to set then thread in. this way it would more easily allow them stay in and later to be removed w/o possible damage
I did. And reported this already a few times.
The whole thread started because the four flimsy screws came loose. Nikon's error. And yes, I still think four 1mm in diameter screws is not strong enough.
Due to the fact that other lenses uses the same fasteners and have apparantly no reported problems, I close this thread now before it becomes a troll.
i've been using them on those mounts which are the same for many years
actually you came out as in Shakespeare's well named play "Much Ado About Nothing".
and then you say this: It would also be useful if Nikon could show video's of their vibration tests with weibull statistics.
yes that was needed to say the least
i wouldn't be throwing that term "troll" around to much.
when one purchase something that is fairly costly. a strict inspection regiment before usage and not only the first time but every time one is going out to use ones tools is strongly recommended.
you may or may not get the shots you want but at least you'll be relatively sure it all works.
i found that out a short time ago on my D500 related to its reflex mirror. its at Nikon repair right now.
Those screws, as small as they may seem, have more than enough strength to hold the lens and camera weight, they will not snap. The issue seems to be that they were not tensioned correctly in manufacture or threadlock was not applied if it was supposed to be applied.
even considering Nikon would use the cheapest quality screws available (4.6), the amount of thread provided by the length of the thread that reaches into the lens, through the plate, the amount of force that could be applied to each single M2 screw, before the screw breaks, is 120 kg/265 lbs (for ease of calculation).
Either incorrect assembly or improper use would lead to failure of this mount. I don't see an engineering error here.
Photon-catcher wrote:
You are absolutely right.
But the strenght of fasteners is related to its diameter. I would not worry if they were 3mm in diameter. But these ones are very small.
I do not have other similar lenses. Can somebody show pictures of the older lenses that use similar connections to the tripod collar. Perhaps we can deduce useful info from older systems. I have not heard of any problems with older systems. If they are the same, my worries could vanish.
It would also be useful if Nikon could show video's of their vibration tests with weibull statistics.
The diameter certainly has an impact on the tensile strength. But the shape of the thread is much more important, as is the material. If you want to do calculations with pen and paper, this text gives some insights: https://apps.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2Fa159347.pdf
