Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

<p>Hello all!</p>

<p>I had an unfortunate event recently and partially dropped my D300 with my 14-24mm f2.8 lens attached (my favorite wide-angle lens by far)! I was hiking near a waterfall and had to decide if I wanted to break my neck of possibly damage the camera....it was a tough call, but I decided to keep my neck intact. ;)</p>

<p>Anyway, it is a story. I ended up knocking two very small chips into the edge of the built-in lens hood. It looks to me like the lens hood could just be replaced. Has anyone had experience trying to get this repair done? I have not idea how much to expect in damage, but if it is a lot, I will want to wait to get it repaired. The good news is that I caught the camera before any damage was done to the camera body or the lens (the lens hood is only cosmetic damage). Nothing else was hurt.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help! Let me know if you need any other details. I can provide shots of the damage if interested. You guys rock!</p><div></div>

<p>Count yourself lucky! That's what hoods are for - besides cutting flare and such. I'd leave it as a proud battle scar - until it's time for a CLA, another repair, or time to sell it.</p>

<p>I would say be prepared to pay at least $200 to $300 to get that built-in lens hood replaced. (I wrote "at least"; could be more.) Most of that will be the labor cost to take the lens apart and put it back together with calibration. You can call Nikon or Authorized Photo Service to see whether they can give you a ball-park estimate over the phone, but most likely they will want to see the lens first. Hopefully there are no other internal damage that is not obvious from the outside.<br /><br />Otherwise, as long as there is no crack on the hood for the damage to worsen, maybe use a little file to smooth out the edge along the chipped area. Be careful so that any debris will not damage the front element.</p>

<p>My guess would be that Nikon would charge $350 based on non-warranty Nikon lens repairs my store has handled. Also, assuming you're in the U.S., the 14-24mm is a lens I would send only to Nikon in El Segundo, CA or Melville, NY. When you get the lens repaired, come back and let us know how much you were actually charged. </p>

<p>Well, the lens is a US lens and it is under warranty for 2 1/2 more years. Does the warranty make any difference in this case? If not, I will probably just hold onto the lens until it is time to sell. I really don't think it hit hard enough to damage anything else. The zoom ring is still smooth, the aperture still goes from 2.8 and 22, and the focus is still accurate. I did a spot check after the incident.</p>

<p>I do count myself lucky, but it is frustrating to treat your equipment so well and then have one slip like this and damage a nice lens. Oh well....such is life.</p>

<p><strong>"Does the warranty make any difference in this case?"</strong></p>

<p>No, Nikon won't repair impact damage under warranty. </p>

<p><strong>"... it is frustrating to treat your equipment so well and then have one slip like this and damage a nice lens."</strong></p>

<p>If you keep at photography for years and years, sooner or later you're going to fumble a piece of equipment, its going to hit the ground and its going to be damaged. I haven't damaged a piece of equipment since I dropped a Vivitar Series 1 lens back in high school. I'm probably about due for another mishap.</p>

<p>Also, like Shun said, if you aren't going to get the lens repaired, I'd smooth out the chips in the metal. I'd also use a small, fine spotting brush to apply a matt Rustoleum paint to the exposed metal- not to guard against rust, but to backstop any unwanted reflections into the lens. </p>

<p>I thought the lens hood was made of plastic...is it made of metal? When it chipped, it seemed like plastic.</p>

<p>You're right Ryan, the hood part of the lens is plastic. I've messed with that lens quite a bit and mistook the hood for metal with a Parkerized-looking finish.</p>

<p>Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).</p>

<p>Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.</p>

<p>You could probably get one of those guys who specialises in minor plastic repairs on cars and the like to repair it fairly inexpensively. It's not causing any functional problems so it's purely a cosmetic repair and if you are intending on keeping the lens for some time it's bound to get some more minor wear marks if nothing else. With that in mind I think spending a couple of hundred dollars at Nikon is probably overkill.<br>

If there was a problem that involved the lenses operation I'd just spend whatever it took.</p>

 

<p>Just shape the plastic as suggested with a fine-tooth file and protect the front element while doing so. Use the money saved to good use on something else you need...there is always something else! <strong>;-)</strong></p>

<p>Ryan, if you indeed are going to use a file or some fine sandpaper to smooth out the dented area, I would use something like perhaps eyeglass cleaning cloth to cover up that bulging front element, as Keith suggests. Use some tape to tape the cloth on. Otherwise, it would be really ironic that the drop didn't damage the glass but any repair attempt does.</p>

<p>Carefully blow away any debris so that it won't scratch your front element.</p>

<p>And give Nikon some credit for designing a very good hood to protect the front element. Obviously there is only so much this hood can do for a 14mm super wide, but it seems to have saved you quite a bit this time.</p>

<p>Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).</p>

<p>Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.</p>

<p>I too think you are very lucky!</p>

<p>I would keep this damaged hood for the proof of luckiness. :D</p>

<p>Hope you can fix it soon!</p>

<p>Not wishing to be a smart-ass, but this illustrates a point of pride with me: in over 40 years as a photographer I have never dropped a camera (well, once early on but I stuck out my foot and stopped it before it hit the floor). There are a couple reasons. For a small camera (my Canon g11, for instance) I have a wrist strap that I wrap around my wrist as soon as the camera comes out. Any time I'm in a potentially hazardous/slippery situation, I put the camera in my ever-present backpack until I'm stable. If I need to take a photo in an unstable environment, I stabilize myself before even thinking about getting the camera out. When walking around in a normal environment, I always have the shoulder strap wrapped around my wrist, so even if the camera should slip out of my hand it doesn't fall to the ground. When hiking, the camera stays in the pack until I'm ready to take a picture.</p>

<p>Of course, if the situation is hurt the camera or hurt myself, the camera would lose. But I do my best to even get in that situation in the first place. I have fairly expensive equipment and I'm not rich so I can't afford to break cameras.</p>

<p>Good for you Ted! I am usually the same way, but in this case, I was on a business trip....so I couldn't bring a camera bag. Being a photo enthusiast, I can't stay for a week in Vermont without bringing out the camera. I am probably crazy, but I am still glad I brought it even with the damage. Plus...what is a few hundred dollars compared to a great shot. I could sell a couple of prints from this trip and the damage would cover itself. That is one of the joys of doing photography for the love of it and not full-time (all money I make is profit to me)!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not wishing to be a smart-ass, but this illustrates a point of pride with me: in over 40 years as a photographer I have never dropped a camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ted, it sounds like you should go out and shoot a lot more often. Once you start doing that, what happens to most of us will likely happen to you as well. :-)</p>

<p>I'd fill the chip with a <a href="http://www.hobbycosf.com/mitwopaeppub.html">black, two-part epoxy putty</a>. This stuff is really easy to work with and cures to be harder than the original plastic. A light filing and a fine sanding once it's dried and you shouldn't be able to tell it was ever chipped.</p>

<p>Hi Ryan,</p>

<p>In the future, may I suggest All Hazards insurance on your camera gear. If you had the insurance, it would be a simple matter of sending the lens to Nikon and the bill to your insurance company.</p>

<p>Good point, Shun! I guess I have been pretty lucky over the years.</p>

<p>Speaking of duh Doooohhhh moments with a 14-24 - - - I was shoooting a Bar early in the AM (as in 10AM not 3:00 AM) - set the 14-24 down and it rolled off the Bar Top - did a half gainer off the bar top and bounced into the WET SINK that is usually a three set basin to wash the glasses . . .<br>

Fortunate thing was - early meant the sink was not filled --- ahhhh However it did have some War Wound dents - a reminder to us ALL - BE AWARE- and all that is dented need not be fixed- But a NEW LENS ! :-)<br>

emc~</p>

<p>One other thing, I shoot D700s, but instead of buying the 14-24mm f/2.8, I opted for the 16-35mm f/4.0. The two extra mms I would have had on the 14-24mm weren't that dear to me; and the VR on the 16-35mm makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0. </p>

<p>The critical factor for me was the ability to use 77mm front-mounted filters on the 16-35mm (I buy all my special effect filters in 77mm, the largest thread size I'll tolerate on a lens). If I ding the front of the lens or hood, I can replace a protection filter or lens hood for a relatively- modest amount of money.</p>

<p>In the last two years, I have repeatedly suggest people to get the 17-35mm/f2.8 instead of the 14-24mm/f2.8, while I have both lenses. Today, there is another choice: the new 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. Some people wonder why: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00RNoP">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RNoP</a><br>

<br>

Personally, I only reserve my 14-24 for some rare occasions that I need to shoot building interiors under tight corners. For that, the 14-24 is great. For other things such as landscape, wedding, etc., the 14-24 is too wide, the zoom range is too limited, and the front element is too vulnerable for comfort.<br>

<br>

I have only played around with the 16-35mm/f4 a bit. While it has serious barrel distortion at 16mm, sharpness seems fine. If you shoot landscape, the 16-35 and 17-35 should be much better choices than the 14-24. You can use a regular filter, lens cap, and lens hood to protect the lens and there is no vulnerable bulging front element. In that case if you break a lens hood or lens cap, just buy a replacement and snap it on. The OP was lucky this time, but that might not be the case every time.<br>

<br>

<br>

BTW, on the topic of equipment insurance, just like extended warranties, for most individuals it is typically a bad idea. Think about it, after paying off all the repair and replacement claims, the insurance company makes itself a handsome profit. In other words, in the long run, you will almost certainly pay out a lot more in premiums than what you collect in claims. (If you own a business and/or have liability issues, insurance will make a lot of sense. As individual photographers, not so much.)</p>

 

<p>Shun and I continue to be somewhat odds as to the relative merits of property insurance. Property and casualty insurers don't make what I would call a "handsome profit." Last year, P&C insurers made only a 3.3% profit as a return on revenues:</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/">http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/</a></p>

<p>That having been said, if you're independently wealthy, having a bag of your equipment fall off a cliff to its doom would be a minor annoyance. You could just order all new equipment, relying on the money you leave lying around your checking account. In which case, you might well want to go without insurance on your equipment.</p>

<p>I have inland marine insurance on my equipment, which covers fire, theft and whatnot. In about another 20 years, if I've never made a claim, my insurer will have reaped a good profit from me. At the same time, if I had $10-20K in equipment stolen or ruined by fire, I'd be screwed. So, insurance is a necessary trade-off for me.</p>

<p>However, I will agree with Shun that all-risk warranties are pricey. For a five-year all-risk warranty, you could spend over 20% of the cost of the piece of equipment. Unless you're absurdly accident-prone, all-risk insurance probably won't give you the best bang for your buck. </p>