Used 80-200 - multiple pieces of tape on lens barrel?

jacob_hamilton2 · March 21, 2015

Purchased a decade-old pro telephoto online, received it today and I wasn't too surprised to find that the zoom ring had quite a bit of play to it. So i slid the rubber grip down and what did I find?

Lots of scotch tape.

I've seen one piece of clear, very thin tape used in older AF-D Nikkors to connect the two ends of the weather seal (the black tape that's chipping on this 80-200). What concerns me is that there's a lot of scotch-width tape here, and it looks like the weather seal has fallen off and been taped over (see the chip under the clear tape above the 80mm mark) and under. That, combined with the zoom ring play and the lack of support from Nikon for this decade-old lens has me concerned. The seller rated this as EX+ according to KEH standards. There's no other issues with the lens except for the expected amount of internal dust. Does anyone know if the 80-200's came like this from the factory? What would you do if you'd gotten a pretty good (but not great) deal on this lens?

Hector Javkin · March 21, 2015

What would you do if you'd gotten a pretty good (but not great) deal on this lens?

</blockquote>

I'd return it and get a refund. I wouldn't even want Scotch tape used to close the outer package in which the lens was shipped. (If the lens were a present, however, it would be fine to use Scotch tape to finish closing the gift wrap.) There is no way that a lens held together in that manner rates an Ex+ by KEH or anyone else reasonable. Get rid of it. There are many used lenses just like that one, but working well without the benefit of Scotch tape.

User_6502147 · March 21, 2015

Allow me to throw in the obvious, if this lens was to be EX+, then it should function properly without the aid of a tape. I suggest you contact the seller and inquire "what's up". Yes, I'd return it.

Les

mike_halliwell · March 21, 2015

Odd, if I was going to fix a 'chipping weather seal' I'd have used a complete circuit of tape. and then put a wrap of the double sided tape they use for attaching the rubber grip. I can't see how the grip was fixed in the first place??

I don't suppose it was double sided tape and the sticky adhesive for the rubber side has transferred to the rubber?

The zoom ring on mine (I've sold it now) was always pretty free, nearly loose, but it had had a hard life. It was optically fine, but the AF-S motor had started to squeak.

dave_wilson1 · March 21, 2015

Just a reasonable guess. The lens was probably disassembled to service and this was a quick fix.

I think I would return it, this is not what I would think of as Ex+.

Sorry.

rodeo_joe1 · March 21, 2015

Jacob, was the play just in the rubber grip?

It looks like some packing has been put under the rubber grip. There appears to be a wrap of thin black card or paper around the zoom ring, not just tape. If that's the case it's a legitimate "repair" to stop the rubber grip slipping. I had a similar job done by Nikon UK, only that was to prevent a trombone zoom from slipping, and was altogether a nastier fix than the one on your lens.

I've also had a brand new Sigma lens where sticky tape was the only thing aligning the focus scale with the focusing grip. Again, that was hidden under a rubber ring.

Given the otherwise good-looking condition of the lens, I wouldn't worry too much what was hidden under the grip. Check it out optically, and if it performs well, then what more could you want?

It looks like the rubber will slide clean off. If so, you may be able to get a new grip fitted quite cheaply. Of course it depends on what you paid for the lens, but if it was a bargain, then the seller probably took account of the lens's age and sloppy grip in their pricing. Because other than the rubber, it does indeed look in Ex+ condition.

Edit: Mike, the rubber grips on Nikon lenses aren't "attached" at all in most cases. They simply rely on friction and elasticity to keep them in place.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 21, 2015

Wow, a lot of very interesting, very different responses here. Mike, I had the same thought about a complete circuit of tape. I don't know why, but Nikon doesn't do that from the factory. Here's a pic of my 28-70 AFD with the same black seal and similar tape, but only one piece of thin tape from the factory, and a much cleaner job: <img src="http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F45Mo07z.jpg&signature=6P8slpQ8HaqjlWrIF5BQlcMCOr4%3D" alt="" width="560" height="374" /> When I first saw the 80-200, I decided to check this lens because it's the closest I have in date of manufacture. The similarity had me second-guess my fear of tape, but I'm inclined to agree with Dave. Because bits of the black tape are missing under the clear stuff, it looks like this fix was done after the lens left the factory. Rodeo Joe, the black layer you see is a weather seal meant to cover the holes in the barrel that are there by design. I've seen it on multiple Nikon lenses. The grip wasn't particularly loose, and as you said was attached only by friction, as it is in a lot of Nikon lenses. To clarify, the play is in the plastic zoom ring itself, not the grip. It moves about 1mm up and down the lens barrel with a slight rattle. A little of this isn't unusual to me for an older lens that's seen some use, but it was bad enough to make me inspect the barrel in the first place. I've handled two other samples of this lens in the field and neither had as much play as this. I've seen the repairs you mention to prevent zoom creep, but note that that technique would not work for this lens, whose elements move separately from the barrel when zooming. Ashamed to admit I bought the lens on eBay, so no seller control over pricing other than the starting bid. The description made no mention of the tape. I'm still not convinced, however, that this isn't a Nikon repair or the way it came from the factory in which case they may not have known about it or cared to mention it. The seller has 100% positive feedback, and has recently sold a lot of pricey Leica glass. This makes me think they've got pretty high standards for quality. I suppose I'm just having a hard time with the idea that a pro telephoto left a Nikon factory with multiple pieces of scotch tape arranged haphazardly inside it. Also, I don't see how there could be pieces of the black tape missing under the clear tape if it came this way from the factory. Sorry for the rambling response, it's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Ed_Ingold · March 21, 2015

The tape was probably applied to tighten a loose rubber ring. The rubber rings stretch with use, whether from skin oils, loss of plasticizers or oxidation. I've had that happen on a couple of lenses. The rubber can be easily and inexpensively replaced by a competent serviceman, or you can do it yourself. This is done as a matter of course if you have a lens serviced, for example, at Authorized Nikon Repair in Elk Grove Village, IL (or is it Morton Grove?). They may discover other issues in a lens this old and recommend repairs. It's up to you whether to proceed, use it as-is, or return the lens to the seller (if possible). It's all about money and how much use you will get from the lens.

thomas_k. · March 21, 2015

My 17-55mm 2.8 nikkor had loose rubber covering of zoom ring after 5 years of use. There was nikon's original double sided tape underneath, which lost it's stickiness. I replaced it with regular double sided scotch tape. No issues since. Maybe previous owner of your lens did the same. I would keep the lens, just add more double sticky tape to fix rubber in place.

ShunCheung · March 21, 2015

That looks like a very amateurish tape job, but that is normally hidden under the rubber zoom ring. The 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S was discontinued around 2003, 2004 when the first 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR was introduced, so all samples are well over 10 years old. I wouldn't expect one to still be in perfect condition (which would have been out of the norm).

Is this lens working fine otherwise? Calling it in Ex+ condition is probably fairly optimistic, but if it is working fine optically and mechanically, it may still be a keeper as long as you are not overpaying.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 21, 2015

Edward, it's funny you should mention Authorized Photo Services in Morton Grove, I live in the area and while I haven't used them myself they're the first place anyone recommends. I will probably take the lens to them for a CLA if I don't return it. This will be my primary telephoto as I branch into indoor sports, so it'll have to stand up to moderate abuse. Shun, the lens is in such good condition (motor works smoothly and makes no squeaking/grinding noises, no scratches, fungus or excessive dust, no damage to the rest of the barrel etc.) that I fear I won't be able to find another, and especially not at this price. The lens meets my standard for EX+ even with the somewhat loose zoom ring. Depending on what the seller says, I'm definitely willing to hold onto it. Thanks to everyone who responded! I'll update with any information from the seller. I'd hate to think this is a factory job, and I would have been quite upset if I had purchased this lens new in 2002 and found several pieces of scotch tape inside.

ShunCheung · March 21, 2015

I bought the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S back in 1999 and sold it probably 7, 8 years ago after I got the 70-200mm VR. I just removed the rubber on my 70-200 and the tape is much much smoother than what your images show. That is clearly an amateur job.

Not sure what the current price is. I think I sold mine for about $900 back then.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 21, 2015

Looks like you were right, Shun. I have an update - a very helpful member of another forum was able to dig up a disassembly video for the 80-200 AFS. At the following point (34:00), you can see that there is only one piece of tape from the factory, and a set of gold contacts is visible under the tape in the gap between the two edges of the black weather seal: <a title="

href="

target="_blank">

The video description says in Japanese that the AF motor was squeaking the the guy in the video decided to strip his lens down and try to clean it, but was unable to procure the part from Nikon.

I suspect that someone disassembled the lens down to the center elements and AF motor and replaced or cleaned something. Judging by the amount of dust in the lens, I doubt that the elements were cleaned recently. I'm definitely taking a bit of a leap to this conclusion, but I suspect that the AF motor has been replaced. Since there's no mention of this in the description, I'm going to ask the seller to provide proof of Nikon-authorized service (I suspect this lens was serviced by a third party). Without that, I'll be returning the lens. For $650 it was a steal, but I don't trust the maintenance work of someone who would leave such sloppy footprints.

ShunCheung · March 21, 2015

Here is my 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1, which is the immediate successor to the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, with its zoom ring rubber band partially removed, revealing the clear tape underneath. That clear tape is custom designed for that width and fits nicely all the way around. It is definitely not some scotch tape irregularly put on the lens barrel.

I am not up to date on current used prices. If the lens is otherwise working fine on both ends of the zoom range, $650 may seem a good deal. You indeed want to make sure that it wasn't "repaired" by some amateurs. If all they did was putting on some scotch tape, that maybe ok. If they had taken the lens apart ....<div></div>

jacob_hamilton2 · March 21, 2015

Thanks, Shun! That's much more in line with that I would expect from Nikon. I worry that the forward-and-backward wobble in the zoom ring itself is connected to the tape issue. I'm thinking the "wiggle room" means that the lens was disassembled and then re-assembled with a margin of error that left the ring loose. Certainly does not inspire confidence, considering that this lens is extremely optically complex - 18 elements in 14 groups - and it's my understanding that removal of certain elements would require some sort of re-calibration of the lens that would be difficult to impossible for an amateur. I haven't tested sharpness to a significant degree yet, but will ASAP.

michael_bradtke · March 21, 2015

I have one that is sitting on the shelf because the AF motor died> When I bought it you could still get parts for it. If I was looking for that focal length now I would pass on it and buy the Sigma 70-200. I would return it for a refund.

JDMvW · March 21, 2015

No way could that lens be EX+, regardless of any other issues or lack of same. If the seller was aware of this, it's deceptive. Return it if you can.

craig_shearman1 · March 21, 2015

Nikon 80-200 and 70-200's are notorious for rubber grips that get loose. If the scotch tape was all that was done, I wouldn't worry about it.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 22, 2015

Tested the lens for sharpness today. Everything is precisely on par with the other samples of this lens that I've handled - sharp all over - which is almost as good wide open as the 70-200 VR II's I've used in the past. The focus accuracy isn't as good as the VRII, but that's what I've experienced with the other samples of this lens that I've handled in the past However, I've come across another sample of this lens from a local seller that appears to be in equally good mechanical shape for $150 less (I think the seller may have the lens confused with the less valuable AF-D). Given the potential issues with this one I'm going to make sure I can return it first and then purchase the second one after I've had a very, very good look at it. I'm aware that the lack of support for this model of lens means there's potential for irreparable issues with even the best-looking samples, but for the price they can't be beat.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 23, 2015

Well, I'll be damned. Seller of lens #2 has sent me images of the same area on his lens: <img src="http://imgur.com/uf2Qi4h.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1064" /> No weather seal. I suspect his motor was also replaced. This should come as no surprise given the fragility of the early AFS motors. His was done more professionally, but the fact that both lenses are otherwise well taken care of tells me that both jobs may be professional, and in my case the pro just went to more trouble to keep the seal, but made it ugly in the process. This guy won't sell me the lens now, as he's decided he still needs it. I think I'll be keeping the original lens, even though the seller approved a return. I think un-modified 80-200's are the proverbial unicorn. Even if I find one, chances are the AF motor is shot, or close to it, or the lens wasn't taken care of and thus not serviced.

PSA: You get what you pay for. These early AFS motors fail, and they may well be no standard for re-assembling the lens after repair. If you find a good one, consider keeping, I guess? Or just shell out an extra $400-500 for a used 70-200 VR1 or third party? Certainly dont buy it at the dated "going rate" of ~$1k that I see quoted in other places. How exhausting.

EDIT: or you can play Schrödinger's lens and just not check for things like this. Probably for the best.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 23, 2015

It's occurred to me that the motors may not be replaced

but simply repaired/contacts cleaned with alcohol, which

these lenses need due to their age and early design. I

think I'll choose to believe that.

1.2k · March 23, 2015

in addtion to the other posts:

they overly loose ring comes from using it...a lot.

thats a normal sign of heavy usage.

tom_boston1 · March 24, 2015

Regarding lens #2 above, I wonder if the tape over the focus scale window suggests the lens had this repair done (loose internal ribbon cable blocking autofocus at close ranges) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VmNfT3MhdM&noredirect=1">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VmNfT3MhdM&noredirect=1</a>

I recently took my old 80-200 out of its case and it no longer focuses closer than 7 or 8 meters. I don't know how endemic that loose ribbon cable is, but I think it's the issue that I have with my lens. I haven't tried to fix it yet though.

jacob_hamilton2 · March 24, 2015

You've got a good point about another issue with this lens, Tom, but that's not the focus scale window. That's under the rubber grip on the zoom ring. It's a hole in the barrel through which you can see gold contacts, I'm thinking that it's designed to interface with a set of contacts inside the lens and communicate focal length to the camera (for metadata purposes?). The tape is supposed to be there to seal the hole against the environment. I suppose the hole is there to make the barrel thinner and the contacts easier to replace. In the Japanese video I posted earlier, you can see the contacts and another band of contacts inside the lens. The connections change based on focal length as the barrel rotates:

/> The guy also sent me a video of that lens focusing, and it will go through the whole range. The focus scale windows on these are often broken when you find them used, so I wonder if a lot of people have made the repair you mention. I'm think I'm becoming an expert on this stuff. The seller of Lens #1 finally responded. Says he's the second owner but the only thing he's done is replace the focus scale window. He invites me to send it back if I have any issues with it. Hmmm...

Sign In

Used 80-200 - multiple pieces of tape on lens barrel?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in