2024- How (Un)reliable are Gen I AFS motors?

[robert_bouknight1]

I am tempted by a few older AFS lenses that are more "affordable" now, such as a 200/f2.  (I know I probably should get a 135 Plena instead, but I am happy with my 105/1,4 AFS, 135 is too close).

Anyway, I had a 300/4 AFS motor fail, own a 17-35 that the previous owner replaced the motor in, and maybe I replaced the motor in a 28-70/2.8 (can't remember).  On the other hand, my gen 1 300/2.8 AFS has very good AF operation and seems fine/bullet-proof though showing some cosmetic wear.  

Repair of failed gen 1 AFS seems to not be an option any more.  I "know" I should avoid them, but maybe some such as a 200/2 first version seem OK?  Other candidates would be 400/2.8 and other now more affordable long exotics?  Wonder if some earlier AFS lenses tend to be more reliable than others.

Please let me know what you think.  Thanks, Robert

Edited February 13 by robert_bouknight1

[Greg M]

Just this past month I sent Midwest Camera Repair in Michigan a squealing 17-35mm f2.8 AFS, which they re-built the AFS motor/fully overhauled and the thing now works like-new.

The added "cost" associated with inexpensive older equipment is the possibility of a write off the older it gets. The 17-35/2.8 has not been discontinued all that long and I'm assuming they may have better access to parts for it than may exist for other, older models. One of your checks may be to check with specialty shops such as Midwest to see what is, or not, possible today and maybe at least for the short-term.

 

Edited February 14 by Greg M

[ShunCheung]

The AF-S motors in my 17-35mm/f2.8 and 28-70mm/f2.8 have both failed about 4, 5 years old, and I bought those lenses around 2001, 2002. I figure those motors can last perhaps 20 years with moderate use. I sold the 300mm/f4, 300mm/f2.8 and 500mm/f4 in the last few years so that (other then those two without working AF motors) I no longer own any AF-S lens with an aperture ring.

When I bought my 500mm/f5.6 PF in January 2019, I thought that probably would be the final F-mount lens I purchased. Now that lens is just out of its 5-year extended warranty, which is no longer available to new Nikkor lenses. I am going to keep things that way. It is all Z lenses for me at this point, although I occasionally adapt that 500 or an older 600mm/f4 on my Z bodies.

If that 200mm/f2 AF-S is cheap enough, perhaps it is worthwhile to take a chance. But don't count on getting its AF-S motor replaced and that lens may become manual focus only.

[robert_bouknight1]

Thanks Greg and Shun,

The 17-35 only fairly recently became not available, so not a surprise that parts are still available for it.  I am surprised that Midwest could get parts, I thought Nikon cut off parts supplies to independents.  Though my 14-30Z is probably better, I still like my squeaky 17-35, maybe I should send it in while I can.

Lurking around ebay one can see which lenses tend to be offered with failed AF motors.  Plenty of 17-35's, some 200-400/4s, 80-200/2.8s, and some others.  Not that I keep records, but I have not seen many (any?) dead motor 300/2.8s or 200/2s.  Keeping my fingers crossed for my 300/2.8, I don't use it much any more but could not get enough $ for it to justify selling.  Its very sharp, and heavy enough to live on a monopod so a newer VR version is not worth the extra $ to me.

Edited February 14 by robert_bouknight1

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

I am surprised that Midwest could get parts

They can't. They refurbish old AFS motors and/or make from new.

I've got a 500mm AND 600mm f4 with dead motors. The 600mm f4 went to be fixed and they found the last spare motor in the World in Japan. Fitted it and found the CPU was shot.  Midwest offered to remake mine but the shipping from here in the UK is prohibitive.

Nikon Z has given them a new lease of life for astro use.

My last AFS purchase was a mint 400mm 2.8 FL..........for considerably less than the Z400mm 2.8 TC. 

[FPapp]

They were able to still source parts directly from Nikon. I was going to post a screen shot of their webpage which states that was the case.

I came upon this unfortunate news instead 😥

[mike_halliwell]

A sad day indeed.

🙁

[ilkka_nissila]

I was told by Nikon's authorized service that the motors that are in frequent use tend to work reliably while ones that are stored away for long periods of time unused can be found not to start again with increased probability. So if you have a lens and you use it regularly it should work for a long time, on average. If it's not being used on a regular basis it might not work in the future. When buying used lenses, one can not really know what the usage history is, but it is probable that a lens that is being sold might have been unused for some time (why else would it be on the used market?).

[mike_halliwell]

I've never heard what the AFS motor squeal sound actually is. It's very characteristic! 

[jose_angel]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I was told by Nikon's authorized service that the motors that are in frequent use tend to work reliably while ones that are stored away for long periods of time unused can be found not to start again with increased probability...

Exactly. My babied and almost unused for years 70-200 VR2 that I keep just in case, stopped working in the closet. Annoying.

Sent it in for repair, AFS motor replacement, took a long time, big expense.  😫

 

[FPapp]

6 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I was told by Nikon's authorized service that the motors that are in frequent use tend to work reliably while ones that are stored away for long periods of time unused can be found not to start again with increased probability. So if you have a lens and you use it regularly it should work for a long time, on average. If it's not being used on a regular basis it might not work in the future. When buying used lenses, one can not really know what the usage history is, but it is probable that a lens that is being sold might have been unused for some time (why else would it be on the used market?).

I’ve also been told that if the motor stops working and/or is squeaky, often it can be revived be exercising the manual focus ring back and forth a number of times.

It was described to me as similar to a brake rotor on a car. When it’s been sitting for a long time you get oxidation built up on the surface, once you start driving it wears off and the surface is clean again.

There was a member on another forum with a 600mm f/4 that had a dead (or so we thought) motor. I suggested he try exercising it before sending it for service. Sure enough it came back to life and he was very grateful to have saved a lot of money!

 

[ShunCheung]

My experience is different. I had not used my 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (purchased in 1998) and 300mm/f4 AF-S (2001) for years, but I tested them a few months ago before selling them, and both AF motors were fine. The AF-S motors on my 17-35mm/f2.8 and 28-70mm/f2.8 started squealing for several years, especially the 28-70, before they finally failed. I still used the 17-35 a lot, but I stopped using the 28-70 after I got the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. 

[Greg M]

Wow, unbelievable about Midwest. I JUST received my 17-35mm f2.8  AFS back from them a very short time ago. Prior to that, they fully serviced an 85mm f1.4 AIS manual focus Nikkor and it works beautifully today.

Truly sad. The turnaround on the 17-35mm repair was very fast. Less than 3-4 weeks. Had to have been one of the final repairs they were working on. I'm feeling pretty lucky I got it in.