gunnar_kullenberg

<p>Rodeo Joe – I did search for Nikon authorized shops yesterday and found that there seems to be two in Southern California, both of them a bit north, northwest from me and one of them a fairly easy drive : )<br> So I'm very much tempted to go there (to one of them) since I am no huge fan of the Wilshire Blvd office anymore...<br> Anyway, I was going to post about tests I did yesterday – people suggested tripod tests and so forth and live view...however, I just decided to try to see what would happen if I used lens as a fully manual lens and tried to get sharp and well focused images that way, without the hassle of tripods...it was a bright sunny day and very easy to step outside and focus on something – just to see if the optics, like I have assumed, are fine...<br> Well I took several images and not all were perfectly sharp, but...I did take a shot at 70mm and it was tack sharp...<br> And I took some at 200 and 170 and some but not all were fine. It was interesting using lens as a manual and I can't say I liked it one hundred percent – the "action" wasn't completely to my liking, but not a problem...<br> Later I went out o take a shot of an incoming airliner (China Southern) – I then had to make a guess about distance and set focus accordingly...result was almost perfect and better than what I did the day before at fully automatic...<br> Earlier in the day I did what I had dreaded doing – attempting to clean inside mirror space. I had a tiny vacuum and tried to use it...it was difficult – it's cramped in there and the situation with the focusing "facilities" is that it's a "leaning shaft" in the floor – leaning away from you, so you can't really see it....but it looked very clean in there...<br> Did it help? – ..no, I don't think so...I also did a sensor spot check shot and it revealed a lot of spots...a lot...but most of the time I will find only two to four...sometimes none, depending...<br> (I pointed camera at sky, closed down focus a lot and set to underexpose a bit...well that "exposed" the dust on the sensor! I also made a Photoshop "map" of the spots...)<br> So that's what I had to report... : )<br> These are the service centers I found...</p> <p><strong>Authorized Camera Service</strong><br /> 21250 Califa St. Suite 115 Woodland Hills, CA 91367<br /> Phone: (818) 340-0582<br> <a href="http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ie=UTF8&q=Authorized+Camera+Service+21250+Califa+St.+Suite+115+Woodland+Hills,+CA++91367&fb=1&gl=it&hq=Authorized+Camera+Service&hnear=21250+Califa+St+%23115,+CA+91367,+USA&cid=0,0,11513092028430234673&ll=34.177264,-118.594129&spn=0.009107,0.010514&z=16&iwloc=A">View Map</a><br> <br> <strong>Pro Camera Service Inc</strong><br /> 710 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd Thousand Oaks CA 91360<br /> Phone: (805) 497-7240<br /> Fax: (805) 497-0826<br /> WebSite: <a href="http://www.procamera.net/">Pro Camera Service Inc</a></p>

<p>Robert – … I like Thom Hogan's style and attitude…I've just charged the battery to enable keeping mirror up. Yes, monkeying around inside there with risk of "new" dust attaching to sensor is what has always concerned me…I will say this, for those that may not know – Nikon's in-camera sensor cleaning scheme works amazingly well. It may not take care of everything, but it does take care of a lot. But I've been wondering, so what happens to that dust that's shaken off of the sensor…it ends up on the "floor" perhaps…? : )</p> <p>Ilkka – …for the first two and a half years or so, the lens performed pretty much perfectly, no matter what I did. I have taken "more than my share" of airplanes (living close to LAX) and that's how I began to notice that at 200 I didn't seem to get the perfect results I had managed before…the other day I found myself next to a modern LED type lamp post and on top a nice, big seagull, crisply white, richly yellow beak with the bright red spot. Perfect I thought – that's a good focus test. So I used lens at 200 and fired off two frames…both of them ridiculously soft…(I did use a polarizer, but that has never been an issue before…)</p> <p>Rodeo Joe – <em>"…lens have worn in one or two frequently used areas - like full-bore at 200mm. Quite likely since the cam followers will also hit an end stop at this point. This sort of cam wear could throw a lens group out of alignment or affect focus accuracy…."</em></p> <p>Funny you mention Tokina…I have a Tokina "issue" as well (the 11-16/2.8)…it was "flawed" from the get go, but supposedly "fixed" by service center here in S. Cal….it seemed to be ok, but later I felt it wouldn't focus as it should…and I haven't mentioned this, not to stir up too many "issues" here, but that could lend additional credence to Thom Hogan's point about dusty floor…</p> <p>Tripod test – yeah, it's a good suggestion…I have kept a string of images in camera though, that would demonstrate the shortcomings (including now, the crisp gull)</p> <p><em>"… The approved repairer won't care who pays for their work! Either by billing Nikon for a warranty repair or the end-user…."</em> – …I didn't know that…is that right? – …you can do that…? That is a very interesting idea, since I really don't have much confidence in Nikon's "efforts" anymore….</p> <p>Chip – …well, I don't have much faith in what they're all about at that service/support center on Wilshire Boulevard…you always talk to a "middleman", who then hopefully communicates correctly with the folks that actually do the work and you never see those folks…I feel sorry for people that have to ship stuff to them..! I can at least drive there pretty easily…and there are just two such centers in all of the US…amazing, in my opinion…but that's where the authorized repair shops come in, I guess….</p> <p>Thanks all for input and suggestions</p>

<p>Chip – ...yeah, you're asking a good question – since I was "offended" by their asking for approval for repair of a camera I did not have any specific problems with per se, I didn't bother to inquire...they wanted 224 for "service"...is all I picked up on...I had acquiesced to them taking possession of camera in order to assist their efforts in correcting the focusing problem – and they now ask for hundreds of dollars to "service" the camera...? – ...I was not ecstatic about that...<br> ...yes, the resolution is slightly reduced due to inexact focus at 200...inability to focus perfectly at 200 results in slightly reduced resolution...but I tell you...most people wouldn't have noticed – it was slight, but enough to have me puzzled... ok..?<br> Michael – yes, I did go to a shop I had some familiarity with and described what I was experiencing and they took a couple of shots and agreed to slight softness...also, they took a picture out "of my sight" that I later saw and it showed man fixing camera with his head at center, which should have been sharp, but...background was slightly sharper...!<br> I don't understand your first sentence – you're suggesting lens mount on camera being out of alignment...? – ..no...that's not what's happening...</p> <p>Anyway, I made some more "focused searches" and found Thom Hogan (is that his name?) talking about these things and he had a list of steps to take that were pretty logical and good and the first is to check cleanliness...if dust has accumulated on top of floor where focusing light passes...then you might have issues....a VERY good point...and I have to explore that.<br> I have been extremely careful with lens and camera – including NOT attempting to clean inside mirror-sensor space...! – ...well...what if I tried to clean that "floor"..?<br> So that's my next step...</p>

<p>...yeah, that's a thought, but...optically, the lens is a stunner and it has been very well treated and never suffered any "mishap" ever...the camera too, has been treated well, but I did have "an experience" a couple of years ago, when I took some sunset shots and came home to discover all black frames (and a few good ones)...this was puzzling and I wondered what could have caused it...</p> <p>I had had the same lens on camera a long time and I eventually concluded that the contacts (between lens and body) had developed "difficulties" in communicating. So I took off lens – I don't remember exactly what I did – but I "freshened up" the contacts...and after that I never had any problem of that nature again....</p> <p>So I'm thinking that it is the electro-mechanical aspects that are not quite up to snuff anymore, but not the optics...I have no reason to doubt the optics...</p> <p>I did in fact make a test against a well-lit hedge from about 40 or so feet. I checked at 200mm and at a shorter length...the shorter length was ok but the 200 was not...</p> <p>This does not "prove" that you might not be correct, but I feel that the problem is of electro-mechanical character...something is muddling the signals...but I can't prove it...</p> <p>Also – one of the first signs of trouble were that lens "back-focused" – I noticed that focus was placed further away from what I was actually aiming at...but I started with blaming myself, assuming I did something incorrectly, until I couldn't...it was the camera-lens combo and not me...<br> Thanks for reply</p>

<p>I have been using a Nikkor 70-200 VR II on a D300 for years now and the warranty of the lens is drawing to a close. (mid-June 2016) – The first two years I felt as if I couldn't take a "non-sharp" picture...it was fantastic...<br> But later on I discovered that it seemed like shooting at the 200 setting would not give the same perfect results as shooting at, say 190mm, or 185...Peculiar I thought and one day I made a very deliberate test, to see if I was imagining or not...<br> I was not, shooting at 185 did produce a picture with higher resolution that if I had shot at 200...clearly, this is not what we want to be the case...<br> So, since I'm in Los Angeles, I took lens to Nikon on Wilshire...<br> After picking up lens, hoping I'd see no such anomalies again, I was disappointed to see that nothing seemed to have changed at all...but Nikon places lens in a plastic bag and affixes a yellow sticker stating that "lens performs in accordance with Nikon specifications"....<br> I took it back...same result..a third time – this time I let Nikon have my camera in order to establish easier what the situation was...that resulted in Nikon asking for hundred of dollars "to service camera"..! – I declined, having had no issues with the camera – and they didn't say what prompted suggested service charge...<br> This third time I had also created a graph showing very clearly what I had experienced, thinking, that would be helpful for them! – I don't believe they did anything at all with the lens...they may have looked at it, seeing no problem, then putting lens in plastic bag, plus affixing the yellow sticker...<br> ...now, Nikon may be right and in fact, I wish they were right – I would rather the lens operates perfectly but has difficulty with the camera's focus assisting abilities – but I want Nikon to PROVE that to me and not just make assertions via yellow stickers...<br> Now, spring of 2016, it's essentially hit or miss with this lens and camera combination...I may get incredibly sharp results or way soft images...(no, I don't have another Nikon to compare with...)<br> As I have searched on the web, I have found that if mirror in camera gets misaligned, it might cause focusing problems...seems logical. And I have searched to see if auto-focus lenses like this one, eventually lose their focusing capabilities, but I haven't found any results or explanations.<br> Now I don't know what to do, except go back a fourth time before warranty runs out...<br> Tests I have done, seem to show that at close range, very close range, focus seems to work well throughout...but at a distance, it will work well, if I'm lucky, between 140-185 or so, but not at the 70-110 range...(or at 200mm)<br> Thoughts...? – ..and thanks for reading my fairly lengthy description...</p>