[Studor13]

What are some typical reasons that you have had to get a (Nikon) lens fixed/repaired? And how much did it cost?



For example, let's say I bought a lens which looks in near perfect condition but after testing it found that it had a back focusing problem as well as something looking very soft on one side at one particular focal length.



The seller "assured" me that he had only used it once or twice. I know it's buyer beware and we take our chances on the used market, but this is the first time that I've had a lens that just doesn't look quite right.



I'm hoping someone's going to tell me that it's not going to be too expensive.

[anyscreenamewilldo]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1322148514' post='13210']

What are some typical reasons that you have had to get a (Nikon) lens fixed/repaired? And how much did it cost?

[/quote]

… centering on a new 70-200 …. repaired at nik oz via a nice german gentleman (agent) on bondi road (since moved on, sadly)… under warranty…. cost $0 …

For example, let's say I bought a lens which ….(was) ….. very soft on one side at one particular focal length….The seller "assured" me that he had only used it once or twice. …

…. no surprise seller hardly used it then … too bad he(she) couldn't have it repaired …. under warranty….

I'm hoping someone's going to tell me that it's not going to be too expensive.

…. i live in hope … and i can't help you …. sorry :-(

[mst]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1322148514' post='13210']

I'm hoping someone's going to tell me that it's not going to be too expensive.

[/quote]



I'm afraid I'm not going to be that someone. Lens repair/calibration costs vary considerably with different lenses.



-- Markus

[Guest]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1322148514' post='13210']

What are some typical reasons that you have had to get a (Nikon) lens fixed/repaired? And how much did it cost?



For example, let's say I bought a lens which looks in near perfect condition but after testing it found that it had a back focusing problem as well as something looking very soft on one side at one particular focal length.



The seller "assured" me that he had only used it once or twice. I know it's buyer beware and we take our chances on the used market, but this is the first time that I've had a lens that just doesn't look quite right.



I'm hoping someone's going to tell me that it's not going to be too expensive.

[/quote]





I know you need this comment like a sick headache but... I always buy new, to avoid other peoples' problems

[Studor13]

Anyways, if anyone wants to pixel peep, here is the image.



The focus point was on the word Dinosauri.

[mst]

That doesn't look good, however you should try to rule out possible causes. The poor sharpness on the left and the center green bottle could be a result of the backfocus (so the spots you look at are simply OOF). You could try to repeat the test with manual focus bracketing and see if you get better results.



What apertures did you use here? Disregard, found them.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

The doubleness of parts of the image might point to a VR-related problem?

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1322228745' post='13229']

The doubleness of parts of the image might point to a VR-related problem?

[/quote]



It could, but it could also simply be how the lens renders. On a tripod, especially during a sharpness test, VR should be off anyway.



-- Markus

[Studor13]

"The poor sharpness on the left and the center green bottle could be a result of the backfocus".



I'm fairly certain that this is the case so in the worse case scenario I will be able to get center and right-hand side to be OK, once the lens is serviced. But the problem as you can see is that something is seriously wrong on the left-hand side. I have f5.6 and f8 samples and they confirm the problem. (The 16-35 image was at f4, the 18-55 at f4.5).



Incidentally, I had the AF Fine-Tune at +9. I tried all the way to +20, but beyond +10 the image fell apart.



Hey, look on the bright side. the 18-55 is one hell of a lens!



"The doubleness of parts of the image might point to a VR-related problem? ".



Double and triple checked. VR was off.



Oh well, I have an excuse to go into the "Big Smoke" - Ljubljana, to get a quote for repairs.



I read the fine print and Nikon says that warranties are not transferable.



Usually, I am very careful with lens purchases. With this one not only did the seller say that it's practically new, but it really is. No signs of user negligence.



I might just have to keep going with that 18-35mm "wonder" lens.



It's more than a let down from Nikon, to say the least, seeing that the 16-35 cost me 10x the 18-55, which the seller threw in a CPL!

[davidmanze]

Hi, I think personally that if you are not happy with the lens you could; obtain an estimate for repairing the lens from Nikon by telephone, a min/max price,if that seems expensive sell the lens (ebay or the like) everybody is selling offcenter lenses, I know I bought one from there so it's nothing unusual.Then if you buy secondhand always ask for RAW images taken at infinity(full aperture1/2 stops down at all focal lengths)This in the main will show whether the lens is well centered and gives you a good chance of seeing the overall quality,or buy new with a test in the shop or at least a return if not satisfied agreement.This off center lenses business is a real worry especially when you consider the price of lenses!I am sorry but my experiences show well over half of new lenses have some offcenter problems. I have even seen articles stating (backed by scientific figures and this that and the other) that we can't expect perfectly centered lenses and we are being unreasonable in thinking so.Well I for one think we should should be getting well centered examples for the money we are paying!

Good luck Dave's clichés