joel_becker1 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 The other day I was in a grey market photo store. I just went in on a whim while walking by. On the shelf I only saw one Nikkor lens. It turned out to be a Nikkor AF 35mm f2 lens. It was open box with no other parts (no caps, no booklet, no nothing), but they were only asking $50 for it. Further examination showed the front element to be in perfect condition. The rear element had what appeared to be two extremely tiny scratches. As they only had a dry lens cloth and an air can, I couldn't clean it well enough to be sure. I could not see the scratches without seriously looking for them, and I couldn't see them through the viewfinder of the F70 it was attached to. AF/AE worked on the F70, so that seems to be in working order. Is this lens, at $50, worth the price and risk? I'm on a budget, so dropping $250 on the grey market version from B&H isn't in the cards. I don't have a 50mm AF right now (just 50mm AI for my FTn), and I doubt I can beat this price on the 50mm f1.8. I like wider lenses for random walkabout photography as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Yes. I'd say it's worth about three times that if the rear element (and the rest of it) is in good shape. Check that the aperture leaves are dry (no visible oil) and that the aperture opens and closes 'briskly' (not sluggish). If possible, inspect the aperture by viewing it at f/16 through the back of a camera firing at about 1/30th. Viewed through a shutter, you should not be able to see the aperture move, it should be 'frozen' at f/16. If you can see the aperture move when viewed this way, it's sluggish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_hunter Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Joel, I really don't think the tiny scratches will affect image quality in any way. I have a 180mm f/2.8 with good knicks on the front and rear elements and the images look fine. I also had a Leica 35mm f/1.4 with a scratch on the rear element and you didn't notice a thing, even with 16x20" prints. Who cares about caps and booklets? Check the lens on an AF camera body to be certain that the AF funtions as it should and that the lens diaphram is stopping down properly. If all is well, I'd buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kelly1 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Make sure the diaphragm stops down freely when you move the linkage and that there is no oil on the diaphragm blades -though this was more of a problem with early AFD's than with AF's. If the diaphragm is ok, buy it.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 See here for the lowdown on the oily aperture problems: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35af.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umd Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 I wouldn't buy it, even if it looks clean. As mentioned above this lens is notorious for leaking oil on diapraghm blades (I have one) and even if it looks ok inside, it could have been cleaned before being put on the display for sale and it can develop it in your hands again. Optically an excellent lens though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_alban Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 A very informal survey I did on about 30-plus samples of 35mm AF lenses led me to believe it's the early AF-D versions that leaked oil into the diaphragm (1994 through 1999). AFAIK, the original AF non-D had no reports of leakage, mine is still clean after 11 years. The post-2000 lenses may be too new to exhibit the problem, or Nikon has fixed it. Before anybody jumps on me, I don't claim it to be a conclusive survey but the pattern seemed to emerge. For $50, I'd get the lens, providing there is no oil (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Can someone explain why the "oily aperture diaphragm" problem only/mainly happens to the 35mm/f2 AF-D. Apparently that is a mechanical issue. Why is it so specific to this particular lens, or there are other lenses that have this same problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_becker1 Posted January 19, 2003 Author Share Posted January 19, 2003 Thanks to everyone for their resposnes Today I went back to the store and purchased the lens. There was no trace of oil on the diaphram and the action was quite perfect. The autofocus worked great on my 6006 (the short screw length makes even the 6006 AF seem decently fast). I'm loving the lens after a day of shooting with it. The close focus ability is a hidden miracle. I think this is going to be my standard carry lens for a bit. As far as the diaphram problem goes (this *is* a D lens), I am hoping it never shows up. The serial number (332109) is later than another known good lens I saw on one of the web pages discussing the problem. The store had the lens mounted on a body, not vertical as all the web pages recommend, and still there was no oil. I'm going to continue to store the lens vertically (front element down) as recommended, and I hope the problem never shows up. For $50, I'm very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now