Squeaky AF-S 400 2.8 VR

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Started to get a bit of a squeak on my 400 2.8VR. It only happens when the lens hasn't been used for a day or so, then it'll squeak on first focus then be fine. It's as if it's seized up a tiny tiny bit and squeaks as the AF motor tries to overcome the stickiness. Does this sound about right?<br />I'm a tad nervous because I had a squeak on my ol AFS 17-35 2.8 which then turned into the AF motor packing in altogether.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Have the lens cleaned and lubricated. Otherwise, chances are that the ring motor eventually burns out.</p>

<p>Had this issue with my 300/2.8 AFS. After CLA it was back to its normal stae again.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Thanks Bjorn.<br>

Also, not 100% thrilled with the performance wide open, it improves considerably at f4, but of course you buy this sort of lens to use at 2.8. I tested it v a Canon 300 2.8 for example (I know they're different lenses) and even at f4 my 400 was not as sharp and punchy as the Canon wide open.<br>

Is this an indication of misalignment? Or to be expected.<br>

<br />Steve</p>

 

[curt wiler]

<p>My 28-70 AF-S had the same squeak - Nikon replaced the motor and CLA'd under extended warranty. If you are still covered, get it to them ASAP. Also had the focus mechanism freeze up without any warning on my 300 f/2.8 AF-S - Nikon also serviced under extended warranty and has been fine since. Both were "first generation AF-S" and problem occurred after several years.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Steve - that's the first time I've heard the optics of the 400 f/2.8 VR criticised. While I'd love to be an expert on the pro glass, are you sure the glass is the limiting factor (i.e. does the Nikkor catch up at even smaller apertures)? Nikon tend to put a stronger antialiasing filter over their sensors than Canon do, so even with the same glass (adapted) the Canon may look a bit sharper. Not to say that the Nikkor (at least, yours) isn't softer or lower contrast - fluorite is good stuff - but my first suspicion would be the body. If you're already using a D3x, I'm way out of my league and my thoughts should be disqualified.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>The 400/2.8 VR lenses I've used have been tack sharp even wide open. Focusing accuracy is critical of course.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I'm using a D3, not a D3x. I have the 200 f2 VR and that always looks stellar. The only other long tele that I can compare it to is an old FD 500 f4.5 that's adapted for Nikon, and that's comfortably sharper than the Nikon wide open and even when both are at f4.5 it's sharper and more contrasty than the Nikon.<br>

This is not to say that it looks awful, but you know what it's like when you pixel peep and side by side!<br>

Steve</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Here are a couple of crops - I know all things are not even at all (one is a Canon 1ds mkiii and 300mm and the other is a D3 at 400mm)!!!<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>And here's the Canon</p><div></div>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I'm not being swayed by the review at Digital Picture site but their findings are the same as mine for this lens.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>On the DP site the Nikon 400 looks atrocious! While the Canon 400 looks like the best lens ever made - for instance the Canon even with a 2x converter looks way better than the Nikon bare!<br>

Steve<br>

ps just tried to post a link to the DP site and it wasn't allowed - guess they've been blacklisted (quite right too!)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Steve - given your equipment list: where do you live, when are you next going away, and where do you leave your keys? :-)<br />

<br />

The difference in the two images you posted looks more like in-camera processing to me, but obviously I'll believe you if you say the 200 f/2 is appreciably better. Maybe I should stop lusting after the 400 f/2.8 until another update. (Not that I'll be able to afford one any more by then - although I might get my hands on a beaten-up manual focus version.)<br />

<br />

I assume you've ruled out autofocus alignment? Haven't taken out the clear filter? Otherwise, unless there's something up with your lens or there's serious sample variation, I'm at a loss - but I'll be very interested to know when it's diagnosed, just in case I win the lottery any time soon.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I did consider in-camera processing etc., but did these in RAW to try to rule this out as much as possible, but I am aware of course that the Canon and Nikon will yield slightly different looks.<br>

I have done AF Fine Tune and the 400 did benefit from +5 or so, this shot is with it at its best. Cameras were set down on a solid surface, so steadier than even on a tripod, static target, and shutter speeds up around the 1/1000th sec mark so I don't think there could be much in the way of user error.<br>

To be honest sample variation was my main thought, and when you spend £6500 on a lens you don't want to feel you've got a duff one!<br />Don't think there'll be a new 400 2.8 from Nikon for a while, but Canon has just announced a new one - £11,500!!!!!! <br>

Steve</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The AA filter is hardware rather than image processing, so it'll still affect RAW files, but frankly if the 200 f/2 is working for you, it doesn't sound like the body. Other than waving the sample images at Nikon and telling them how much you've spent with them and that you're about to jump to Canon, I'm not sure where you go. Soft <i>and</i> less contrasty suggests something's happened to the lens, rather than just something growing in it. I can only sympathise - although my nearest approximation is not being blown away by the 135 f/2 DC.<br />

<br />

If it helps, Park Cameras in Burgess Hill have a 400 f/2.8 on a mount in the window (or did a few weeks ago when I picked up my 200 f/2 - which funnily enough looked smaller until I took it home). If you went in and bought a filter for their trouble, I'm sure they'd let you take some sample shots and see whether your lens behaves differently from theirs.<br />

<br />

As for replacements, Nikon <i>have</i> just replaced the 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 and 200 f/2. I wouldn't be surprised if the 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/4 also got refreshed in the next couple of years (along with an 800 f/5.6 if Nikon want to play catch-up). That said, I wouldn't expect there to be much change except for the price (and the VR system), like the previous refreshes. Whether they'll take pity on us plebs and release a 400 f/4 or f/5.6 prime is another matter - they'd probably rather flog the 200-400 and 80-400 instead. And I could be completely wrong.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>All good points Andrew, will check into Park Cameras too.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Steve</p>