jacob_hamilton2

<p>Thanks for the replies. I'm using the lens with a D800 and a D7000, same issue with both. The live view is equally slow in both movie and picture LV modes, whether I'm hand-holding or I've got the lens mounted on a tripod.<br /><br />Good point about checking the EXIF, Kari. If something was wrong with those contacts then it follows that the focal length reporting would be off as well. Most of the time it's accurate, but occasionally it will report 185mm when I'm zoomed all the way in to 200. I can't tell for sure, but this seems to correspond with the focusing difficulties. <br /><br />Would inaccurate focal length data affect the phase-detection AF differently than the CD-AF?<br /><br />EDIT: Unfortunately I've missed the return window. Looks like I'll be keeping this and getting it checked by APS or NCS camera.</p>

<p>I purchased a used 80-200 AFS a few weeks ago, and after quite a bit of field-testing I was convinced that the lens was free of the issues that often affect the older Silent Wave Motors in these lenses. Today I tested it indoors in live view and found that it won't find focus most of the time, and it makes a high-pitched squeal when it finishes seeking. In good light, it focuses quickly and effectively when using the viewfinder.<br /><br />When I first got the lens, I was using it in an indoor low-light situation and I noticed that in situations where many of my lenses would seek focus (low-contrast, dark areas of the subject), this lens tends to "bounce" back and forward in and out of focus with a clunking sound. When it can't achieve focus at all, it usually just returns to infinity, but for the first time today it made an ear-wrenching, electronic squealing noise for about one second. This happens less often the further I get from 200mm. <br /><br />In Live View, it fails to focus about 75% of the time, and makes a slightly different squealing sound, but with much greater frequency. This also happens less as i zoom further out to 70mm.<br /><br />I've heard of and experienced the squeaky, grinding noise of a failing AF motor, but this is different. It's a nails-on chalkboard noise that only occurs when the lens can't seem to find focus. I noticed that the focal length contacts, which are usually visible in between the ends of the weather sealing paper under the zoom ring:<br> <img src="http://imgur.com/uf2Qi4h.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1064" /><br /><br />are not visible on my lens, and I suspect that the weather seal may have been put back in an unusual manner when the AFS motor was serviced in the past.<br /><br />Any clues as to what may be the issue here?</p>

<p>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.<br /><br />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: /><br />The guy also sent me a video of that lens focusing, and it will go through the whole range.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I'm think I'm becoming an expert on this stuff.<br /><br />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...</p>

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.

<p>Well, I'll be damned.<br /> <br /> 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" /><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>EDIT: or you can play Schrödinger's lens and just not check for things like this. Probably for the best.</p>

<p>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<br /><br /><em>However</em>, 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.<br /><br />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.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun! That's much more in line with that I would expect from Nikon. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.</p>

<p>Looks like you were right, Shun. <br /><br />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"> <br /><br />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.<br> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</p>

<p>Wow, a lot of very interesting, very different responses here.<br /><br />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:<br /><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" /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Sorry for the rambling response, it's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet.</p>

<p>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?<br> Lots of scotch tape.<br> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/4iyJEFb.jpg" alt="" width="560" height="374" /><br> <img id="exifviewer-img-1" src="http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA54ukh9.jpg&signature=egrK22X53Cl5X90JipiJM7a8Ebk%3D" alt="" width="560" height="374" data-dpr-src-type="w" data-dpr-url="http://i.imgur.com/A54ukh9.jpg" data-dpr-original-width="2000" data-dpr-original-height="1335" data-dpr-large-image-url="http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS940x940?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA54ukh9.jpg&signature=SaC36d9LL9YdKOurpd8sz%2FMUDgg%3D" data-dpr-xlarge-image-url="http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS1600x1600?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA54ukh9.jpg&signature=ZhyEXxtTL1EbQPB8hU5sC3wwloE%3D" data-dpr-full-image-url="http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/E?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA54ukh9.jpg&signature=xgWI8KcZklqF236JeM9bSxr0%2BU8%3D" data-dpr-clickthrough-url="http://i.imgur.com/A54ukh9.jpg" data-dpr-small-image-width="560" data-dpr-small-image-height="374" data-dpr-large-image-width="940" data-dpr-large-image-height="627" data-dpr-xlarge-image-width="1600" data-dpr-xlarge-image-height="1068" data-dpr-full-image-width="2000" data-dpr-full-image-height="1335" /></p> <p ><img id="exifviewer-img-2" src="http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F90sJTq9.jpg&signature=BHjmb6DJoOqjke%2B0xXFLut%2FxTlQ%3D" alt="" width="560" height="374" data-dpr-src-type="w" data-dpr-url="http://i.imgur.com/90sJTq9.jpg" data-dpr-original-width="2000" data-dpr-original-height="1335" data-dpr-large-image-url="http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS940x940?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F90sJTq9.jpg&signature=o6i6TYEHYQPVoQpJy5cjzUY5m08%3D" data-dpr-xlarge-image-url="http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS1600x1600?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F90sJTq9.jpg&signature=easACA%2Ba3e00elDVelfsO8ro2bs%3D" data-dpr-full-image-url="http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/E?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F90sJTq9.jpg&signature=1hpUKAMFOgWePtSrFCZiSl00O04%3D" data-dpr-clickthrough-url="http://i.imgur.com/90sJTq9.jpg" data-dpr-small-image-width="560" data-dpr-small-image-height="374" data-dpr-large-image-width="940" data-dpr-large-image-height="627" data-dpr-xlarge-image-width="1600" data-dpr-xlarge-image-height="1068" data-dpr-full-image-width="2000" data-dpr-full-image-height="1335" /><br> 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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />What would you do if you'd gotten a pretty good (but not great) deal on this lens?</p>