james_meketa

<p>My earlier post (April 12) about returns being recycled was based on what I was told <em>explicitly</em> by the owner of a large, east coast camera store when I asked him what would happen to a brand new, but badly decentered, prime lens I was returning. I assumed from his reply that this practice was standard. I am glad to learn that it may not be.<br>

As far as Adorama and B&H are concerned, I have purchased large amounts of equipment from them over the past two decades. Both are fine retailers, and I have never had a single problem with either one. I can recommend both highly.</p>

<p>Richard:<br>

I have both. The 35mm f1.4 is a little more even across the FX frame, but both are superb lenses. The better for you will be a function of your style. Early Leica photojournalists used a 35mm because 24mm was not available, but many modern PJs prefer the 24mm. It's up to you. <br>

Two issues to keep in mind. First, test the lens carefully. My first 24mm f1.4 was terribly decentered. I returned it immediately, and it was quickly resold to some unsuspecting dummy. My first 35mm was near perfect.<br>

Second, both lenses can have severe focus issues with specific bodies. For example, my 24mm will not focus accurately on my D700, but works great on my two D3s bodies. The 35mm works well with both. Some pros (e.g., Lloyd Chambers) have had problems with the 35mm, although I have not. Do a careful Google search for other's results, and test, test, test before laying out the big $.</p>

<p>Ted:<br>

I own more than $30K of Nikon equipment, most of it pro-grade. <em>Fully one-half of it has either been repaired by Nikon under warranty, or gone back immediately to the vendor on purchase due to gross defects.</em><br>

Nikon, Canon and the others have outsourced all quality control to their customers, <strong><em>because they can.</em></strong> Most amateurs cannot tell a badly decentered lens from a good lens. Decentering doesn't show up on pictures of your cat.<br>

Your question could be rephrased: why was Detroit able to foist two decades of crappy cars on the American public? Because they could.<br>

My policy is to buy, test quickly, and return defects aggressively. Every time I return a defective lens to B&H or Adorama, I know that it will be repackaged and resold as new to someone who doesn't know any better. At first, I felt guilty.</p>

 

<p>Long:<br>

Very simple: your lens hood is not screwed on right. Ignore all the responses about sensor dust, filters, etc. I have a 16-35, and the lens hood is easily dislodged. At f5.6 a well centered version of this lens is excellent.<br>

Jim Meketa</p>

<p>I have a 16-35 VR and the 24-70. It took two samples of each to get good ones. A few months ago, I got a rare 24mm f1.4 for the shallow depth of field, lack of distortion, and sharpness. Unfortunately, my one sample was badly decentered. I returned it, with a nasty letter to Mr. Okamoto, President of Nikon USA, but have heard nothing from Nikon. The dealer gave me a full refund, reluctantly.<br>

This lens <em>could</em> be exceptional, but like everything from Nikon (and Canon, etc) these days, <em>be careful</em>. <em>Nikon has outsourced all quality control to you, the customer</em>. Mine was unusable, and I paid full list. Sooner or later I will get a good one.<br>

If you look around, you will find that a high percentage of even the best, hard to find, exotic stuff is garbage. Check out Lloyd Chambers's reviews of his Nikon 300mm f2.8 ,and some very expensive Leica lenses. My first two Nikon D3s bodies were defective on arrival ($5400 each!).<br>

Camera companies are no different from airlines. It's a race to the bottom.</p>

<p>I got my first D3s just before Christmas 2009. DOA, would not focus. Returned to dealer. Second one (dealer's last sample) arrived early January 2010. Intermittant focus failure. Since I did not want to wait months for number 3, I sent #2 to Nikon for repair. After two weeks, it came back working great, and except for the excessive weight, it is the best body I have ever owned. The noise performance at ISO 3200 has to be seen to be believed.<br>

With careful tests, the D3s is just barely 1.5 stops better in noise than my trustworthy D700, which is almost exactly what DxO Labs reports. If Nikon ever makes a D700s, I will buy the bodies at list price until I get one that works.<br>

On another sad note, I got a rare 24mm f1.4 a few weeks ago. It was decentered. I returned it to the dealer for a refund, and sent an very unhappy letter with example photos to Mr. Okamoto, President of Nikon USA (unfortunately, not my first letter to him).<br>

<strong><em>Nikon has outsourced all quality control to the consumer, even on bodies that cost $5,200 and prime lenses that cost $2,400.</em></strong> Just look at the latest review of the 16-35 f4 VR in dpreview (test sample badly decentered).<br>

Before someone thinks I am a Nikon troll, check Lloyd Chambers blog or slrgear. Or better yet, test your new stuff carefully. <strong><em>All</em></strong> manufacturers, even Leica, are putting out tons of untested garbage.<br>

When it works, Nikon stuff is outstanding. Sadly, you may have to go through several samples to get one that works.<br>

<strong>My advice: Buy only from dealers who will take defective items back, no questions asked, and test everything rigorously as soon as you get it. Keep sending defective c**p back until you get something worth the money you paid for it.</strong></p>

<p>1) Clean as little as possible. Even a fairly gross amount of crud on a lens will not noticeably degrade performance in most cases. Blow most dust particles off very carefully with compressed air. Practice with a junk lens or eyeglasses until you get the technique down. It's not hard, and compressed air is completely safe if done carefully.<br>

2) If you must physically clean the lens element, use micro fibre wipes and very pure denatured alcohol. Again, practice first on something worthless, and inspect your work in bright sunlight. You can get pure denatured alcohol at Home Depot or paint stores in small cans. Keep in mind that it will absorb atmospheric moisture if the can is left open, leading to streaks. It's cheap; replace the can once or twice a year.<br>

Wash your hands carefully with soap and water before starting. The alcohol will instantly draw grease from your fingers into the wipe.<br>

I have done field cleaning in pretty dirty sites, with perfect results. As with all things, practice, practice, practice.</p>

<p>I own both the VR1 and VR2 versions of this lens. After much careful testing on a D700, I have the following results.<br>

1) The VR2 is sharper in the center by a small amount at all focal lengths, but considerably more contrasty. In the corners, the VR2 is <em>vastly</em> better.<br>

2) With the VR2 vignetting is no longer an issue.<br>

3) The VR2 is definitely better than the VR1 for reducing shake, although you must still turn it off on a secure tripod.<br>

4) The VR2's focal length reduces only moderately at most focussing distances (down to 10'), but a lot up real close, compared to the VR1. For me, this is not much of an issue, since neither lens can focus closer than about 5'. The VR2 is sharper up close.<br>

Would I trade my VR1 for the VR2? Does anyone want to buy my mint VR1?</p>

<p>My results with my 70-200 and 200-400 match Nikon's advice perfectly. The old 70-200 should <em>never</em> be used with VR and a locked down tripod. Sometimes, VR1 makes things worse even on a bean bag or hand held against a solid object.<br>

The 200-400 may not have this problem, but when I am shooting at 400mm (560mm on DX), I lock down, turn off VR, put a heavy bean bag on the lens, and go to MUP or shutter delay. </p>

<p>If you shoot in raw, leave it off.<br>

I highly recommend making personal tests instead of asking for advice on the web, much of which is garbage. I actually made a number of careful tests on my D700 and D300s. At the Low ADL setting, raw is not affected at all. With Normal, the actual exposure can be reduced <em>about</em> 0.3 to 0.4EV. With High the actual exposure can be reduced <em>about</em> 0.8 to 1.0EV. <em>No other changes are made to the raw image</em>, although the internal JPG is modified extensively. You have no way of knowing if the exposure modification is going to be the same from image to image.<br>

If you open the raw image in Photoshop or DxO, the ADL EXIF information is ignored, but the images remain under-exposed. With NX2, Nikon attempts to apply the ADL algorithms at the time of open, but you can override and change them.<br>

If you are shooting in raw, it means you are planning to post process the image. In that case, do your best to get the exposure right in the camera in the first place (as well as the white balance, which makes it easier to adjust the raw image). Learn by actually watching how your camera distorts the histograms displayed on the LCD. Bracket in various scenarios and see later which ones worked, and which didn't.<br>

Your camera is simply a mechanical tool. Play with it and test it to see how it works. Keep notes.</p>

<p>On a DX body, this lens <em><strong>can</strong></em> be excellent (just like the 55-200). My first 70-300 was badly decentered, and I sent it back immediately. The second was moderately decentered only in the the 150mm range. 300mm was really sharp, as was 70mm. I kept it for about a year. Bokeh is so so, focus speed is OK, VR is quite good. The lack of a tripod collar is a small problem. Contrast is good.<br>

The build quality on this lens is mediocre (but the price is low). You may have to try several to get a good one. Since the 70-300 and 55-200 are small and light, I sometimes think about buying four or five to get one really good one, but I am slowly going all FX.</p>

<p>The D300 is a superb camera up to ISO 800 - you will love it! Get the best glass you can afford. I have two cherry-picked 16-85s that work great. My 70-200 VR is also fantastic on this body. The 35mm f1.8 should be great, although you may have to try several. The 17-55 is also very good, but many have focus issues. The 18-200 is very soft compared to the others.</p>

<p>I own two copies of each (D300 and D90). The D90 is about 2/3 stop BETTER in low light noise performance after ISO 800. I have confirmed DxO's analysis closely. The D300, on the other hand, has superb low light auto focus capability, about equal my D700. It will focus pretty reliably in light too dim to see clearly.<br>

The D300 is a great performer up to ISO 800, but it falls apart after that quickly. The D90 will go to ISO 1600. The D700 is good for ISO 3200 with full exposure.</p>

 

<p>This is a known Nikon problem. Mine pretty much healed itself, but with Nikon's 5 year warranty, you will have no problems. Just send it in.</p>

<p>I just had one of my two D300s fail in the same way yesterday. <strong>This is a Nikon equipment problem, period.</strong> Next week it goes back to Nikon for a warranty fix, plus they can clean off the INSIDE of the rear display, which was filthy from the factory.<br>

Both Nikon and Canon are making products as cheaply as possible, and the failure rate is skyrocketing. About 1/3 of my Nikon lenses are either no good on receipt, or fail within a year or so. One half (that's correct, 50%) of my bodies have been back to Nikon for warranty repairs.<br>

Most posters don't want to believe it, but<em> the camera industry is in a race to the bottom</em>, and they are all winning. If it is made in Japan, you have a chance. Thailand, watch out. China - it's probably complete crap. Take a stereo, camera or other item made in China and break it open and look at the quality of the solder joints, etc. You will begin to get a clue. As an aside, avoid baby formula made in China.<br>

My solution is simple. Don't accept junk. Test, and aggessively return defective items. Buy extended warranties, and use them. ALWAYS assume two, not one, points of failure for critical situations. This means that when I go on an important vacation, or shoot an important event, I have three of everything that could fail.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently walked 285 miles across northern Italy with two D40x bodies clipped to the front straps of my backpack. One had a 18-70 zoom, and the other a 55-200 zoom. My 4000+ images were fantastic, and I never noticed the weight.<br>

<em>How</em> you carry the cameras makes as much difference as the actual weight. Experiment, and find out what works for you. Unless I am walking around town, I never carry a camera over my shoulder unless I am using the no-slip Up-Strap. When hiking, I clip the cameras to the front of my pack straps using very small carabiners (you must get good ones). You look like a geek, but they are easy on, easy off, always accessible, and the weight goes with the pack.<br>

For long walks today, I would take a matched pair of D90s with 16-85 zooms. Until you have had a lens or body fail 1000 miles from home, you will not appreciate the importance of redundancy.<br>

I have a D700/24-70 combo that I use a great deal. The negative issue is not so much that it is huge and heavy (it is), but rather that it is huge and conspicuous. Nevertheless, the image quality and durability make it worth the effort in most circumstances.<br>

Keep in mind that two huge, heavy bodies and telephoto lenses weigh less than the excess body fat the average American carries everywhere.</p>

<p>I agree completely with <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499258">Jose Angel</a>. I own lots of Nikon lenses, and the 24-70 is one of the few that I would never trade. It is a fantastic, pro-grade walk around and PJ lens. Its sharpness and contrast are matched only by the 70-200, and then only when the tele is mounted on a DX body.</p>

<p>You are asking the wrong question. What are you going to do when, in the middle of Kenya, your D40x fails?<br>

Don't go anywhere important without complete redundancy.</p>

<p>Several posters have suggested that any qualms about products made in China are possibly the result of racism. I would point out the extraordinary number of recent cases of tainted baby formula, pharmaceuticals and other products from China, not to mention their total disregard for intellectual property and individual human rights. A little less political correctness, and a bit more common sense, are in order.</p>

<p>I recently returned my first sample of the 10-24. It had severe focus issues in the range 14mm to about 20mm. When using an object at infinity as the focus point, the lens would actually focus at about 8 feet. This was visible in unsharp infinity images, and simply by looking at the distance scale at the top of the lens. In other words, the lens would focus correctly at 10mm, and then be grossly different using the same focus point when moved to 14mm.<br>

Hopefully, my second sample will be better. Please keep in mind, however, that there is NO post production quality control testing done on consumer SLR lenses: not Nikon, not Canon, not anyone. Wide zooms are very hard to make, and as a result, the failure rate is going to be very high. After two or three poor samples, I will abandon trying, and buy a 14-24, where there is some actual quality control. Maybe I will get lucky.<br>

About 1/3 of all consumer lenses are grossly deficient, and another 1/3 are marginal at best. Don't believe me - look at Photozone.de's test results, or better yet, conduct a few careful tests yourself. It is frustrating and time consuming, but if you want good tools, you have to be willing to make a few tests. The era when most photographic products were well made is long over.</p>

The 18-70 kit lens is destined to be a Nikon classic, not because its image quality is fantastic, but rather because it offers an unusual combination of quality and price. I own two Nikkor 18-70 zooms. I have more than 20,000 images with this lens.

 

 

Optical quality is very good. The 18-70 is quite sharp at all apertures, has good contrast, focuses quickly and reliably, and has excellent macro performance. On my two samples, the close focus (macro) performance is superb. There is some variability lens to lens; try to test several if you can. The differences between my two are minimal.

 

The 18-70 easily exceeds the resolution of a 6MB camera (e.g., Nikon D70s), and tests the resolution of a Nikon D200 (10.5MP). At f8, the 18-70 will match the performance of lenses costing 5X more (i.e., the 17-55mm and the 17-35mm).

 

Build quality is OK, but not first rate. On the other hand, this lens will be obsolete well before it wears out.

 

There are two significant issues. First, there is a lot of vignetting, especially at 18mm. This is easily corrected in Photoshop or Nikon Capture. Second, there is moderate distortion at 18mm, and it is complex moustache. It can be fixed easily with PTLens ($10), but not Photoshop CS2. Be careful taking pictures with a flat horizon.

 

As a one off lens, it is priced at about $300 as of November 2006. As a kit lens, it is much cheaper. At these prices, it is an extraordinary bargain. Very few photographers will be able to outperform this lens.

 

I have tested the 18-70 against two samples of Nikon's new 18-200 zoom. Up to 70mm, the two lenses are virtually identical, with similar distortion, sharpness and vignetting. The 18-70, however, is much better in close up performance. Of course, there is no VR, but that is rarely an issue with a lens that does not exceed 70mm. My experience with the 18-200 is that it starts to fall apart rapidly after 100mm. From 100mm on, there is very strong chromatic aberration (color fringing). Try the 18-200 before buying it: it has gotten both rave reviews and quite poor reviews.

 

I have not seen or tested the new 18-135 zoom. Several reviews, however, have said that it is very sharp, at the expense of distortion and vignetting. Nikon's MTF charts confirm this. Distortion and vignetting can be cured easily with software, softness is forever. Too bad the 18-135 lacks VR. I am betting that it is otherwise a great bargain.

 

Jim Meketa