Nikon quality control

markyboy.1967

markyboy.1967

Messages
8,171
Name
Mark Molloy
Edit My Images
Yes
Folks, i undecided about a lens i have at the moment and have decided that instead of selling on that i would try out for a week or two and if the sharpness isnt up to standard then i would like to send to Nikon to have checked over.

Has anyone sent a lens to Nikon with suspect sharpness to have the issue fixed, was the process easy, quick and what was a typical cost.
 
What lens are you thinking of sending back?

I've never had problems with Nikon.
 
The lens is an 85 f1.8 which i need to try out some more before deciding if its soft or not. I teste alongside the 70-200. The 85mm at 1.8 and at 2.8 and it just dint look quite as sharp as the 70-200 at 2.8 so it needs further testing to decide. So typical turnaround time and a cost idea would be good.
 
Before going off and spending hundreds on repair, try to fix it wityh the D700's focus fine tuning option.

Your lens may have a problem with back/front focusing. Its not that big of a deal. You'll probably spend £100-200 fixing that, its only a £300.00 lens
 
Your comparing a £1200+ lens to a £300?
Obviously theres going to be difference, even if its a prime.
My Nikon 50mm 1.4 is about the same as my 24-70 2.8
Even though theres a £900 price gap.

Primes are good, but the Nikon zoom trinity (14-24, 24-70 & 70-200) are the three most sought after and sharpest zooms available right now.

My next venture is a 70-200 VRII but I'll have to wait for that one. Cant afford the £1600 tag right now lol.

Either way, Your comparing £300 to £1200+ so ofcourse its going to be less sharp.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Surely Nikon wont charge that to check calibration of a lens?
Click to expand...

Possibly if it is under warranty they might not charge, but I wouldn't imagine they would check equipment free of charge indefinitely!
 
custodian said:
There's no reason why a 50mm 1.8 Nikon which cost just over £100 can't ouperform any of the Nikon zooms for resolution!
Click to expand...

No reason at all...except for the fact that it doesn't...:lol:

As Adam quite rightly points out, with Nikon you do get what you pay for...

The three 'Holy-Trinity' zooms mentioned above are as sharp if not sharper than aný of the Nikon primes that fall within their range, with the possible exception of the 85mm f/1.4 (£1,600) and the 200mm f/2 (£3,000-ish)...
 
Arkady said:
As Adam quite rightly points out, with Nikon you do get what you pay for...

The three 'Holy-Trinity' zooms mentioned above are as sharp if not sharper than aný of the Nikon primes that fall within their range, with the possible exception of the 85mm f/1.4 (£1,600) and the 200mm f/2 (£3,000-ish)...
Click to expand...

Except that wasn't his point.

He was drawing the parallel that only by spending £1200 on a zoom can you achieve that sort of sharpness, which is nonsense.

A £250 50/1.4 is easily as sharp as the 24-70 at f2.8 and beyond.
 
Arkady said:
No reason at all...except for the fact that it doesn't...:lol:

As Adam quite rightly points out, with Nikon you do get what you pay for...

The three 'Holy-Trinity' zooms mentioned above are as sharp if not sharper than aný of the Nikon primes that fall within their range, with the possible exception of the 85mm f/1.4 (£1,600) and the 200mm f/2 (£3,000-ish)...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you base your opinion on.

Ken Rockwell, in his full review of the Nikon lens range concludes:
"This is Nikon's latest 50mm lens which replaces the 50mm f/1.8 AF (non D). It sells for only about $125 and is super sharp. See it compared to lenses costing 15 times as much at my Nikon Pro Normal Zoom Comparison. It is as sharp or sharper!"

There are full resolution tests on his site to back that up.

I own the prestige zooms and also the prime I mentioned and I reckon the prime is at least as good in both spatial resolution and contrast resolution as the zooms.

Now I would certainly argue that the 2.8 zooms are pro lenses built to work in a pro environment. You pays yer money for that feature, but I don't know of any evidence that they have higher resolution than the cheap prime I mentioned. Certainly on examination of shots taken on my D3X, I don't see it.

What is your evidence for your conclusion? :shake:
 
Last edited:
custodian said:
I'm not sure what you base your opinion on.

Ken Rockwell, in his full review of the Nikon lens range concludes:
"This is Nikon's latest 50mm lens which replaces the 50mm f/1.8 AF (non D). It sells for only about $125 and is super sharp. See it compared to lenses costing 15 times as much at my Nikon Pro Normal Zoom Comparison. It is as sharp or sharper!"

There are full resolution tests on his site to back that up.

I own the prestige zooms and also the prime I mentioned and I reckon the prime is at least as good in both spatial resolution and contrast resolution as the zooms.

Now I would certainly argue that the 2.8 zooms are pro lenses built to work in a pro environment. You pays yer money for that feature, but I don't know of any evidence that they have higher resolution than the cheap prime I mentioned. Certainly on examination of shots taken on my D3X, I don't see it.

What is your evidence for your conclusion? :shake:
Click to expand...

I own all those lenses too (either currently or in the past). I own D3 and D3x bodies as well...I take photos with them. I look at the results.

Also, I don't give a flying Four-X what K-R says - his site is a useful resource and faintly amusing at times, but as a sole basis of authority? Nope...

I actually don't care if you believe me or not: I'm satisfied with my results...if you're equally as satisfied with yours then we're all good...
 
Radiohead said:
Except that wasn't his point.

He was drawing the parallel that only by spending £1200 on a zoom can you achieve that sort of sharpness, which is nonsense.

A £250 50/1.4 is easily as sharp as the 24-70 at f2.8 and beyond.
Click to expand...

I think I said that, didn't I? That the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom is as sharp or sharper than any of the primes within its range (which would tend to include the 50mm f/1.4)?
Which means that the 50 f/1.4 is as sharp as the zoom...? It works both ways, I think...

My 35mm f/2 - and older design without the benefit of nano chrystal coating - is also as sharp as the 24-70, but exhibits some colour-fringing with high contrast subjects, so in that sense it's not as good as the zoom. I still use it as it weighs a lot less and is useful as a walkabout lens.
 
Radiohead said:
Except that wasn't his point.

He was drawing the parallel that only by spending £1200 on a zoom can you achieve that sort of sharpness, which is nonsense.

A £250 50/1.4 is easily as sharp as the 24-70 at f2.8 and beyond.
Click to expand...

I have both and can clarify, your wrong. Both set to 50mm and both at 2.8 the 24-70 still shines.

The 50mm is still a fantastic lens.

Mind you, Your trying to compare one of (if not, THE sharpest) zoom lens available on the market right now to a couple of £300 primes.
Sure there is no reason why primes cant out-do any zoom no matter how sharp it may be. Theres less glass in a prime and therefor less to blur. However demand on zoom is becoming so popular that companies like Nikon are bound to bring out earth shatteringly awesome lenses such as the 24-70 2.8 :D
All the quality and light of a prime, paired with the flexabilty of a zoom. What more do you want?

You get what you pay for.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of us have both. Plenty of know that's not the case. Best get your 50mn checked.

But what do I know eh?
 
Radiohead said:
Plenty of us have both. Plenty of know that's not the case. Best get your 50mn checked.

But what do I know eh?
Click to expand...


Nothing...same as me - rank amateurs the pair of us... I don't even take photos...:shrug:

I make it all up, you know...
 
AdamPearcey said:
I have both and can clarify, your wrong.
Click to expand...

I do enjoy your great simplifications and general inability to post anything even remotely sensible. I thought I'd seen the quote of the year from you already but you've surpassed yourself here :D

AdamPearcey said:
Both set to 50mm and both at 2.8 the 24-70 still shines.
Click to expand...

equal to each other maybe,neither outshine

AdamPearcey said:
The 50mm is still a fantastic lens.
Click to expand...

at last a sensible comment :thumbs:
 
Anyway...........

1. If it's in warranty Nikon will check for free - if it's impact/abuse damage they may charge for repair
2. If it's out of warranty then they will charge
3. Some "simple" or older lenses Nikon don't actually service themselves, they send to Fixation so you can save a little time and maybe some money by sending it to Fixation.
4. Yes, I had a soft 24-70 that went to Nikon. New bayonet and it's staggeringly sharp again.
5. I think we need something similar to Godwin's Law. If you back up your argument with Kennie boy then you lose.
 
So going back to the orignial post. Wouldn't it be easier to hire, borrow or steal a similar lens to use as a comparison?
 
AdamPearcey said:
I have both and can clarify, your wrong. Both set to 50mm and both at 2.8 the 24-70 still shines.

The 50mm is still a fantastic lens.

Mind you, Your trying to compare one of (if not, THE sharpest) zoom lens available on the market right now to a couple of £300 primes.
Sure there is no reason why primes cant out-do any zoom no matter how sharp it may be. Theres less glass in a prime and therefor less to blur. However demand on zoom is becoming so popular that companies like Nikon are bound to bring out earth shatteringly awesome lenses such as the 24-70 2.8 :D
All the quality and light of a prime, paired with the flexabilty of a zoom. What more do you want?

You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

I'm going to make a suggestion here.

I'm guessing you're fairly new to the world of photography. You're making some pretty daft claims (you only need one camera as a pro, you can't use FX lenses on a crop body and so on). You're trying to teach people to suck eggs.

There are a lot of photographer's here with far, far more experience than you. Pros and Amateurs. It might be worth you finding out more about what they've done and do, day-in and day-out, before trying to position yourself as an authority in every subject. Because you're very obviously not. For instance - I've used both of the Nikkors in discussion here since the day they were released.

But as Arkady said, rank amateurs the pair of us. What do we know? We make it all up.
 
Wow, talk about lighting the blue touch paper!

My point was that it is very easy for people to spout opinions on lens performance which may, or may not, be a load of b*******.

Without some proof, it is not going anywhere.

Spatial resolution is one of several parameters that might be important in a given situation. Various types of aberrations also are important; contrast resolution is also important; but of course all of us that take pictures seriously know that.

Please don't take a question as to the evidence for your argument as a personal insult. It is really just asking the question as to whether you have done a controlled test, using the 500mm (1.4 or 1.8) and the mid range zoom set to 50 to take the same subject, then compared central and edge resolution? Of course even that would ignore sample variation but it might be a bit more useful than behaving like a prima donna, don't you think.
 
Last edited:
Lenses are funny creatures. Just run through my collection Canon, Nikon, Tamron. Remember the first Canon digital lens, Beautiful build, but the sharpness is crap. Tamron are strange. They strive for full range (28-270) don`t seem to care for walk about types. Must say though, they give good shots. Nikon are OK, making them everywhere. I have a Tamron 55 - 200, looks a real cheap lens F4-5.6, but the shots are great.
 
custodian said:
... It is really just asking the question as to whether you have done a controlled test, using the 50mm (1.4 or 1.8) and the mid range zoom set to 50 to take the same subject, then compared central and edge resolution? Of course even that would ignore sample variation but it might be a bit more useful than behaving like a prima donna, don't you think.
Click to expand...

First thing I did when I got my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 was to compare them to the primes in my collection within their ranges at equivalent apertures.

My newer 'fast' Pro primes fared better than cheaper lenses in terms of edge resolution and CA, but were still only roughly equal in terms of resolving detail compared to the zooms.
My older lenses were not only slightly less sharp (as expected), but showed more CA and colour-fringing...the new zooms were way better.

I only used the 100% 'pixel-peep' method as anything else is frankly overkill unless you routinely shoot bench subjects under fully controlled conditions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top