Oli on diaphragms of 35mm 2.0 AF and 50mm 1.8 AFlenses

[bob_yarsh]

I have read numerous postings here and elsewhere about the

problem of oil on the Nikon 35mm f2.0 AF lens. I examined my

lenses and noticed some visible oil on the diaphragm blades of

both this as well as the Nikon 50 mm 1.8 AF lens. However, I

have not noticed any obvious effects (some slides have been

overexposed, but no more than other lenses that don;t have

visible oil). Any advice from those who have experienced this

problem? How obvious is the effect on pictures? Is visible oil

alone reason to get the lenses serviced, or would you leave well

enough alone unless there is a problem with photos. Any advice

from those who have experienced this problem would be

welcome. Thanks! Bob Yarsh

[neil_parker]

It's not so much the oil, but the sticking diaphraghm that results. Test your lens off the camera and make sure there is not any lag when the diaphraghm snaps shut. If there is, then faulty exposures will happen. If the diaphraghm isn't sticking, but there is oil visible then it is probably only a matter of time until it does.

[jim_gifford]

<<How obvious is the effect on pictures?>>

 

When you THINK you're shooting at f/11 but your 35mm lens actually doesn't stop down from f/2, the effect is enough overexposure to ruin most pictures, plus of course no depth of field. 36 bright fuzzy blobs later, you know the scope of the problem.

 

<<Is visible oil alone reason to get the lenses serviced...>>

 

If you would find a roll of unusable images distressing, yes. If you can wait for the coal-mine canary to die (in other words if you are willing to keep working with the lens until AFTER that fateful roll comes out of the developer)... then delaying the service is an acceptable option.

 

It may not be possible to find a cost-effective repair for the 50 (since it can be replaced with a new one for under $100) but for the 35 a cleaning is likely to be less $$$ than replacement.

 

Good luck.

[bob_yarsh]

Thanks to those who replied. Just to clarify a bit, there is a small

amount of what appears to be oil on the inside of the blades

(seen best from rear), and the blades move well when tested

with the small level on the back of the lens. For the record, I

store my lenses front-down at room temp and they're relatively

new (one was a 2nd hand demo, and on the 50 mm I forgot to

send in the 5-yr warranty card, so both are out of warranty.) In

reading a number of threads on this, it seems that many

mid-sized Nikon lenses (35, 50, 55 mm) develop visible oil on

the blades, and that some of these lenses get stuck. Given that

both my lenses in this range have oil, I'm wondering if the oil

itself is relatively common on Nikno 35-55 mm lenses but a

relatively few actually stick. Or does oil almost always lead to

gross sticking? (1) Do some others have similar oil for years

without problems? (2) Is the sticking usually obvious, or can it

cause relatively subtle overexposure? From my 0 for 2 record,

and reading other threads, I'd be concerned that cleaning the

35mm and getting a new 50mm may not guarantee success.

[jbq]

Ken Rockwell reports in his review of the 35/2 that somebody reports that the situation improve if you store the lens on its rear cap.

[eric leffers fotografie]

"Ken Rockwell reports in his review of the 35/2 that somebody reports that the situation improve if you store the lens on its rear cap."

 

Don't you mean the lens should be stored on its front cap?

[gary_loo]

Bob, Answering your question, in my 25 years of shooting with Nikon equipment, the only problem I ever had with a Nikkor lens is with the 35mm 2.0D, where I did experiencing the sticking blade problem. In my particular experience, the 35mm 2.0D would periodically significantly overexpose a single slide for every 25-50 rolls of film. Yes, this is a very small percentage but for me, and my luck, the over-exposed frame almost always turn out to be that "ultimate" shot. It's like a police officer which relies on his weapon firing but during that once in a lifetime event, that particular cartridge fails to go off...that could be his last! Okay, maybe this was a bad example but you get the drift I think. Nowadays, I just keep a 35mm 1.4 AIS handy but rarely do I use that particular focal length anymore. Seems that I tend to grab my 24mm 2.8D when I need wide nowadays but that's just me.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think you should just send them in to be cleaned. It is nice to see the problem before it starts affecting exposures.

[bob_yarsh]

I want to thank all who replied. If I was using the lenses in a

digital camera with instant feedback, I would have kept them.

However, I usully use them backpacking (on my Nikon FE2), so I

wouldn't recognize a stuck diaphragm until I had blown up to a

week a week of pictures. From what I learned here, it was too

much of a risk. I thus got rid of the lenses and have picked up

new Nikon 35mm and 50mm lenses (and have remembered to

send in the 5-year warranty cards!). My fingers are crossed. It

would be interesting, however, to get a real sense of what % of

those lenses with oil on the diaphragms wind up freezing.