QC question

<p>Dear all,<br /><br /><br>

I am still looking for a safari kit. I had the opportunity to see a D500 + 80-400.<br />I was surprised to notice the lens-body wa not free of play : when slightly turning the lens, I could see some play in the body mount.<br />I am not used to big zooms / SLRS so I don't know if this is considered normal, or a question of having luck to get a good exemplary and thus a QC issue ?<br /><br /><br>

Is there a big difference between different exemplaries of a lens such as the 80-400 ?</p>

<p>thanks for your insight</p>

<p>Didier</p>

<p>I would consider a very small amount of play normal, as I have seen this on both my DSLR and mirrorless camera/lens mounts.</p>

<p>For whatever it is worth, I just mounted my 80-400mm AF-S VR on my D500, and there is a tiny bit of play. After that I tried the lens on other Nikon body with the same result.</p>

<p>Since I have no access on Didier's set up such that I can't comment on that specific case, but it seems pretty normal.</p>

<p>From the other side (Canon), all or most of my EOS camera/lens combinations have a little bit of play. Seems quite normal and in fact without it it would be impossible to (dis)mount lenses. <br>

But.. when I was young everything was better, even camera equipment :-) Canon FD lenses had a breechlock mount whereby the lens remained static on the body and it was locked by a ring. Even the newFD lenses had this system, although a bit consealed. It seems to me that these lenses fitted better with less play than todays lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But.. when I was young everything was better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was exactly what my grandmother used to tell me when I was kid in the 1960's. She said that products made decades before (which would make it the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's) were of much higher quality and far more durable. My grandmother was no photographer, but according to her theory, apparently those Canon FD stuffs from the 1960's weren't very good. :-)</p>

<p>I, however, prefer modern new stuffs.</p>

<p>The Canon Breech lock mount was very secured but a bit slow to change lens. The FD allows you to change lens faster and yet still have most of the advantages of the breech lock. However, the lens to camera interfacing was poor so Canon replaced it with the EF mount instead of trying to adapt the FD mount for AF.</p>

BeBu, I agree that the EF mount is the better one but I can still change nFD lenses with my eyes shut, something I can't

do with EF lenses.

<p>I've seen play between a lot of my lenses on most cameras (including old ones), and some others being quite tight. Obviously the amount of play should not be excessive, but otherwise I wouldn't worry too much.</p>

<p>My not-too-old 300 f/4 feels a solid chunk of metal, as does my ~50 year old 50mm f/2. The 300 f/4 has some play on my D700, none on the TC14. The 50 f/2 has some play on the Nikkormat FT (which is the same age as the lens). All these piece work fine. So, yeah, the old stuff was made to last, sure. But I guess I can only judge in roughly 42 years from now whether that 300 f/4 was inferior or not :-)</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your comments. I know now I won't have to take that play into account when purchasing my combo !</p>

<p>Didier</p>