Lens not repairable. Scrap it or get it back?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by rick_kalamaya, Dec 1, 2013.

  1. I had a Sigma telephoto lens for my Nikon D600. I took it to Mexico to photograph my son's wedding near the ocean. In the process of taking photos of the surf, a rogue wave came in and hit my camera bag and soaked the lens. I sent it back to Sigma and the word came back that the lens was not worth repairing. They then asked if I wanted the lens returned or should they scrap it. It would cost $10 to return. Is there any reason for me to get that lens back?
     
  2. If it where my lens I would call Sigma and talk to them. But with salt water and all that good stuff it is probably a best a paper weight. And just out of morbid curiosity what lens was it?
     
  3. Rick, if you like to tinker, $10 is not a high price to pay for the education of playing around with it; either open it up, or keep it as a derelict lens for decoration or souvenir of the wedding, or even use it for aesthetic effect.
     
  4. I'd want it back. I'd disassemble it and use the optical elements to make a sculpture. Perhaps embedded into clear Lucite along with tiny photos from the wedding, using the lens optics to magnify the photos. And, in the middle, one of those little ocean globe paperweight doodads.
     
  5. I'd suggest to get the lens back and either disassemble it (if you are curious) or sell it on Ebay as defect/for parts. I was amazed to see how many people are actually interested in all kinds of seemingly unsalvageable gear. naturally, you need to be honest in your description of the lens.
     
  6. Rick, if you plan on replacing that lens with the same, I would get it back. Personally, I would get it back anyway. Dismantle it and sell the parts or keep them in case you need parts in the future. I throw away everything but camera parts. Just yesterday my cat pulled my D300 off a table putting a nice dent/crack in the front(filter threads) of my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. So, I will have to wait for a damaged 50mm lens to show up on ebay. Nikon will probably charge me more than the lens is worth to repair and they no longer sell parts so what can you do?
     
  7. What Martynas Aleksa and others said above: sell it on Ebay as defect/for parts.
    Reusing is good for the environment as well.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Rick, are you going to doing something once you get the lens back, e.g. sell it as parts, as suggested above? You may get, e.g., $30, $50 for it after spending some effort dealing with potential buyers on eBay, Craig's List, etc. There could also be no takers. Whether that is worthwhile or not is up to you to decide.
    Otherwise, you are merely dumping another $10 into the ocean, on top of losing the lens. That is, as they say, adding insult to injury.
    If you have plenty of time in your hands, there is one situation. If you are a busy person and would rather not spend additional effort on this lens, I would just part with it cleanly.
     
  9. Not sure where I saw the photo but at
    some point I've seen a shot done
    where someone did the "drop in water"
    photo of an unusable lens. So now you
    only need a fish tank to pull off that
    shot.
     
  10. I would get it back. I have occassionally had broken gear magically start working again after a few years of sitting in the closet. Of course I've also had working gear break after a few years of sitting in the closet.
     
  11. 15 or more years ago, I bought a Canon P LTM rangefinder camera with a somewhat rare 50mm f2.8 Canon optic. (Back in the day the faster lenses were in demand). This lens is very sharp. When buying the camera, I noted the clip on meter and the self timer were "asleep" thus I got the outfit for $75 wrinkled shutter and all. I've used the camera many times adding the following lenses to the stable: 35mm f2, 50mm f1.9 Konica Hexanon ca. 1956, Canon 100 f4, Canon 135 f3.5. The camera has been most faithful in performance. Recently, the self timer lever for some strange reason was no longer "locked" and I was able to fire the shutter on self time. No, the meter is still "asleep"!
     
  12. I would get it back. I have ooccasionallyhad broken gear magically start working again after a few years of sitting in the closet. Of course I've also had working gear break after a few years of sitting in the closet.​
    With salt water hitting the lens, you would need a lot of magic.
     
  13. The lens was a Sigma 70 - 200, 2.8 lens. It was highly recommended. But I see from some other posts such as input from Shun Cheung, that I might want something like a 400 mm lens for wildlife/birds. And it also might be that I don't really need to spend the extra bucks for 2.8. That item costs a lot of money. So I thank all for the comments, and plan to call and drop the $10. I also plan to be fanatically careful anytime I come close to the ocean in the future.
     
  14. When I dropped a zoom lens I bought used for $100, I took the opportunity to find out how durable that front element really is. I scraped a sharp eyeglass screwdriver across it and was unable to leave a significant scratch.
    Then I tried to disassemble it but hit a wall. I thought I had every screw I could find undone but it was still staying put.
    I'd had my fun at that point and tossed it.
     
  15. Rick, that is an expensive lens you definitely want that back. Is a matter of fact I may want to buy it. How long ago did the accident happen?
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I am not sure how much sea water got into the lens, but if it was pretty wet, it is very likely to be not worth repairing as Sigma says. Certain non-metal parts, such as the lens elements, could be reuseable.
    If you are interested in a 400mm lens, I can highly recommend the new 80-400mm AF-S VR. I have extensive experience with three samples of that lens, although one was a refurb and not in perfect condition. The two new ones I have used are excellent. The second one I bought myself, so I put my money where my mouth, or keyboard, is. However, at $2700, it is very expensive.
     
  17. (1) If you dabble with eBay, I would suggest getting it back. I am amazed at how well non-functional lenses do at eBay. Recently I sold a Nikon D300s camera and a 200mm micro, that were soaked in salt water, for much higher amounts than I had anticipated. I did mention the water damage and specified that they should be considered for parts only, both in the item title and in the description. In fact I was hoping the bids would stop at some point because I was quite worried. The final amount for the 200mm micro was more than $550.
    (2) Re 400mm - I agree with Shun. The new 80-400mm lens is amazing.
     
  18. Derek, et al. The lens was hit by the water on November 1. And I do dabble on eBay and am interested in limiting my loss.
     
  19. I checked on eBay and I think that Nikon 80-400 lens is selling for about $900 used. That is way less than half. If the seller has an impeccable feedback, what is the common wisdom? Now a few if you mention the "new" 80-400 lens. How might one distinguish?
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The old version of the 80-400mm, which is an AF-D lens without a built-in AF motor, has slow AF and is not good near its long end, which is where most people use this kind of lenses for. Otherwise, you might as well get a 70-200. My suggestion is to avoid it. Whenever something is cheap, there are usually very good reason for it. I would advice against getting the AF-D version.
    The new AF-S version has fixed all of those issues. I have finished the review for photo.net and it should be published soon. I have experience with three different samples of that lens:
    1. The test sample Nikon sent me is great: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5.
    2. Since the AF-S is expensive, I tried to save money and got a refurbished one, and I got burned by another refurb lens: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0Fc
    3. With a trip to New Zealand coming up last month, I finally bought a new one myself in October. For a couple of days I had both (2) and (3) together, and the difference is obvious.
    But $2700 is definitely expensive for a fairly slow, f5.6 400mm lens.
     
  21. Thanks, Shun.
     

Share This Page