chris_bassett1

So I just got the lens back from repair. $500 to replace the AF motor (apparently the lens was dropped at some point, as they said there was impact damage which damaged the motor). Anyway, $500 for a new motor, calibration and cleaning, so it's essentially a "refurbished" lens now and works great. Hopefully, with what I've spent thus far (about $900) on this, it will last at least a few years.... But I have read about people who still have these lenses from day one, and they're still going strong, so hopefully that's the case here too.

I'll probably get a quote, see what it costs to just buy the motor (but not have it installed). Then just wait for it to die. But again, like yo usaid, it may not even be a problem. Does Nikon require you have paperwork for the lens? I purchased it used quite cheap, but with no paperwork or docuemntation. Still has serial number on it though, obviously. I did post a video from youtube that shows the noise I'm hearing, and most people who've looked at it say it's the AF motor as it seems to be a common thing. This lens, is also probably one of the first lenses, so probably from the era you're describing: 2007-2008, so it's older. That and I don't even know if it's a US version or grey market. I guess worst case is Nikon would refuse to look at it if it was grey market and then I'm just back to square one with repairs. At least I have a worst case scenario (local shop charging $450 to replace the motor, which they can get).

That's what I was thinking. Even though it may live for another month or year, I may be screwed if I wait too long. Was also considering buying a spare AF motor just in case it dies again in a year or two (I can only get a 6 month warranty on replacement unfortunately). I anticipate of the $450 quoted for repair, about $150-200 is for the motor itself...

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8G lens (that's probably about 6-7 years old) that I got really cheap as part of a bundle of lenses from someone I know. He told me that he thinks the AF motor on the 70-200 was dying (and this is evidenced by a squeak when focusing--focusing is still spot on and accurate, and quite, but it squeaks when it has to search). Like I said, it still focuses fine, and is quick, but just makes noises... This must be a first gen lens (he got it used and paid a good amount for it) so there is no papers on the lens, but I did find a place near me that will fix it regardless when the motor does decide to go out. So anyway, my question is: since we are pretty sure the AF motor is dying, is there any danger in letting it completely die until replacing it? I don't have to worry about it damaging any other components do I? I can deal with the squeaking noise, but who knows, it may still work for another year or so, or die tomorrow.... either way, I know it's going to crap out at some point, probably sooner than later, but just want to make sure that letting it die is not going to harm anything else. VR motor is still in good shape.

<p>I'll be taking a landscape photography trip in a bit, and was wondering which lens would be better for that. I know the "E" version is the improved (newer) version, and has VR, but I've heard some mixed stories that the center is not as sharp as the G version, but the mid and outer edges are more sharp than on the "G" version.<br> Here's the reason I'm asking about the E version: I'm going to be in an area where it may be rather windy, and I'm concerned that even with a solid tripod, the lens may vibrate ever so slightly due to high winds, and I'm thinking the VR on the E version might help keep images sharp, but I'm concerned about sharpness overall.<br> Can anyone discuss the differences in image quality (if any) between these two for landscape work?</p>

<p>Can anyone suggest a good, sharp, lens for the M10 Mark II that covers approximately 12mm - 50mm. The kit lens I have (which is the 14-42mm) is not all that great in my opinion--images look a little soft, even when on a tripod so it's not related to camera shake. <br> I will mainly use this camera for street photography so I'd like a lens that can fit that role. Doesn't have to be an Olympus lens, but I would like the AF to work.</p>

<p>If that's the Out of camera JPEGs, that's fine if there is extra processing as I never use them (and usually have the camera just do RAW only). I was just curious if I was missing out on something. I do like my RAW files to be neutral though (no added processing ,except maybe a little noise reduction from in-camera processes). </p>

<p>The biggest piece of advice I can give (I don't do macro that much) is to use an actual macro lens designed for macro shots. Too many times, I've seen people try to use a 300 or 400mm lens for macro shots, even using those "lens reversal" kits that let you "convert" your 300mm lens into a macro lens. I don't buy into that stuff, and always tell people to get an actual macro lens. As mentioned above, a good tripod, and perhaps a remote shutter release so you don't bump the camera when shooting. Also invest in a decent lighting setup and don't use the camera's flash or any flash system, just use continous lighting.</p>

<p>Is there any image quality difference between the Olympus E-M10 Mark II and the M5 Mark II? From what I've read, the sensor is the same on both cameras, and there are only a few major differences (like the M5 having a shutter than go to 1/8000s, weather sealing, and a magenseum alloy body/frame, and 10fps vs 8fps burst for the M10--neither of which I care too much about as 8fps is fast enough for me). <br> I am tempted to get the M10 Mark II as it's about $400 cheaper, and I don't really need the weather sealing or the 1/8000s shutter, but am concerned about the Image quality between the two? <br> Can anyone comment on whether the IQ is identical (assuming the same lens is used and the same settings for a particular shot) or not?</p>