Really getting fed up with Nikon zoom lens build quality

StewartR

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
So I currently have TEN Nikon lenses at Kingston for repair.

500mm f/4 VR ... VR failure
14-24mm f/2.8 ... zoom seizure
80-400mm VR ... zoom rough and notchy
14-24mm f/2.8 ... zoom stiff at 24mm end
24-70mm f/2.8 ... zoom rough and notchy
80-400mm VR ... zoom rough and notchy
24-70mm f/2.8 ... zoom mechanism loose
80-200mm f/2.8 ... zoom rough
10.5mm fisheye ... focus ring loose
18-300mm DX ... zoom sticky

Spot the pattern? I'm really getting very fed up with Nikon zooms. The 14-24, 24-70 and 80-400 all have chronically unreliable zoom mechanisms. (Interestingly the 70-200 is OK.)

Since the beginning of 2015 we've had 33 problems with Nikon zoom mechanisms and 8 problems with Canon zoom mechanisms. But that's in the context of having approximately twice as many Canon lenses as Nikon lenses in our stock (400+ vs 200+), so the failure rate of Nikon zooms is very roughly 8 times the failure rate of Canon zooms.

Food for thought?
 
StewartR said:
Food for thought?
Click to expand...


On the face of it, it would appear so. It'd be interesting to see how many relative hires each lens has, an idea of relative age for your stock and to know if there was anything else behind it. Nikon users being clumsy Oafs fairly consistently for example
 
:canon:
 
Hi,
Never had any problems with Canon L series white zooms, not trying to say it's the case for Everyone just lucky I guess.
 
Last edited:
Want to buy a 80-200 f2.8 Stewart?

Mine's brilliant

One touch mind. Maybe the 2 touch is inferior?
You don't mention which your's is.
 
... and have they been rented out to the same people?

I've never had a zoom (or prime for that matter) fail in 40 years of photography.

To be fair, the relative failures should be the same between Canon and Nikon. Your clientele must be a ham fisted lot :)
 
It is interesting reading. Yes there are variables that could account for this such as Nikon users not being as careful, but 8x more is a bit extreme and unlikely to be solely down to this.

I hope my Nikon zooms continue to behave OK.
 
That is a lot of lenses not earning anything never mind about the inconvenience of packing and sending them off .

Rob.
 
Interesting reading and you can't argue the facts .:canon:
 
Is there some ergonomic difference between Canon and Nikon zooms that requires Nikon users to hold the lens by the zoom ring when mounting/demounting whilst Canon zooms have more barrel available to hold on to? The zoom mechanism end stop would then be required to overcome the resistance of the "bayonet twist".

Bob
 
Last edited:
Lens rental used to have a warning about the 14-24:

"HIGH RISK LENS: I’M SURPRISED TO HAVE TO DO THIS, BUT THE NIKON 14-24 F/2.8 LENS HAS A HIGHER FAILURE RATE THAN MOST LENSES IN OUR LINEUP.

How high? The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens has a problem rate of 1% of rentals, despite being checked out thoroughly before it leaves us.

Why? There is a recurring problem with very stiff or ‘catching’ zoom rings. At times the internal barrel seems to ‘catch’ in the outer barrel. It seems to occur after shipping (probably from getting shaken or jarred).

What’s the point? We’re letting you know on the front end make sure you order this lens in time to check it out before you leave for vacation or schedule your big shoot. We can send a replacement if it has a problem, but we can’t send a replacement Friday night to get to you Saturday morning.

Type of problem: Problem with stiff or ‘bumpy’ zoom rings, not as severe or frequent as with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, but similar."
Click to expand...

Sounds like neglectful mounting or the lens being impacted. Not really a massive fan of Nikon's build quality with their zoom lenses, although the 70-200 was built like a tank.
 
No problem with Nikon lenses ,so don't understand why yours are failing
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Since the beginning of 2015 we've had 33 problems with Nikon zoom mechanisms and 8 problems with Canon zoom mechanisms. But that's in the context of having approximately twice as many Canon lenses as Nikon lenses in our stock (400+ vs 200+), so the failure rate of Nikon zooms is very roughly 8 times the failure rate of Canon zooms.

Food for thought?
Click to expand...

Definitely.

I'm not up with the recent Nikon lens range. Do all the lenses affected have body focus motor connectors?
 
Stu Meech said:
Are Nikon still taking far longer to fix the lenses too?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Last 10 Nikon lenses sent in for repair: average turnaround 28.5 days, best 12 days, 9 out of 10 took 25 days or more
Last 10 Canon lenses sent in for repair: average turnaround 10.9 days, best 3 days, 8 out of 10 took 8 days or less

We don't have enough Sigma lenses to make a statistically sound comparison, but the 4 repairs we've done this year have had turnaround times of 6, 9, 13 and 11 days. So their performance seems to be quite similar to Canon's.

These figures are based on our easiest measure of the repair turnaround time - from the day we send it to the day we get it back. Obviously that includes transit time and quite often weekends as well. If the two manufacturers had similar performance, then these measurement issues could affect the comparison. But it's clear that that's not an issue here.
 
boyfalldown said:
It'd be interesting to ... know if there was anything else behind it. Nikon users being clumsy Oafs fairly consistently for example
Click to expand...
kendo1 said:
... and have they been rented out to the same people? ... Your clientele must be a ham fisted lot :)
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
It is interesting reading. Yes there are variables that could account for this such as Nikon users not being as careful, but 8x more is a bit extreme and unlikely to be solely down to this.
Click to expand...
Canon Bob said:
Is there some ergonomic difference between Canon and Nikon zooms that requires Nikon users to hold the lens by the zoom ring when mounting/demounting whilst Canon zooms have more barrel available to hold on to? The zoom mechanism end stop would then be required to overcome the resistance of the "bayonet twist".
Click to expand...
I've been starting to think about this but I haven't reached any conclusions yet.

I think we can discount the notion that these differences are solely down to Nikon users being clumsy oafs, or at least clumsier than Canon users.

I noticed that the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR does not suffer a lot of zoom failures, and it's the only one of these 4 common Nikon zooms which has an internal zoom mechanism, i.e. it doesn't get longer as it zooms. That had led me to think that perhaps it was a build quality issue, and maybe these Nikon zooms don't stand up too well to any stresses which are put on the barrel whilst it's extended.

But Bob's suggestion is an ingenious and plausible one. I'll have to have a look at that.
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
I'm not up with the recent Nikon lens range. Do all the lenses affected have body focus motor connectors?
Click to expand...
No. None of them do; they're all relatively modern AF-S lens designs, with electrical connections and focus motors in the lenses. (I can't see how that would affect the zoom rings anyway, though.)
 
Laudrup said:
Lens rental used to have a warning about the 14-24...
Click to expand...
That's interesting. But it's also very interesting that they say "It seems to occur after shipping (probably from getting shaken or jarred)." Most of our repairs are zoom mechanisms that are starting to deteriorate, to the extent that we can anticipate an imminent failure. But if you didn't handle an awful lot of lenses and you knew what was "normal", you wouldn't necessarily spot them. We certainly have relatively few actual total failures whilst in customers' hands. That suggests to me that, compared with Lens Rentals, at least one of the following four statements is probably true:
  1. Our delivery agents handle parcels more carefully. (Unlikely?)
  2. We pack lenses to withstand the rigours of transport better. (Maybe)
  3. Our inspection procedures are more rigorous. (Unlikely)
  4. We're more pro-active in getting things repaired before they fail totally. (Possible)
 
Last edited:
I doubt there is much difference between CaNikon's build quality. It's more likely an issue with the quality of users. Most Nikon users wouldn't know what to do with a lens anyway so are probably using them to hammer in tent pegs or something...

:exit:

On the other hand, I remember a post from PH a while ago that stated the Nikon bodies held up better than the Canons at the end of the school year.
 
Interesting. My Nikons have held up to constant abuse ands misuse incredibly well.
I told the story years ago (F4s era) of being on helicopter duty at the Class 1 powerboat grand prix around the continent. Coming back after practise session I was sortingmy gear and the pilot banked suddenly and one F4s with 80-200 (the old trombone 2.8) attached went out the door. We were about 80 feet above the landing spot in a grass field. It had a good covering of grass, but even so. When we landed I picked the camera up and everything still worked, including the lens and the zoom and focus. I did send it in for checking after the weekend and the bayonet had been slightly bent. Three screws later and a new bayonet mount was installed. They did it while I waited at Richmod.
My 24-70 2.8 attached to one of the D3 bodies went down the deck of a RIB during a shoot last summer. My bag was on the jump seat, open and I was using the 70-200 on another body. It fell a couple of feet but was a hard alnding because it was like it was 'thrown' AND it got doused by a saltwater wave that came over the top. This happens a lot. My D3 bodies and lenses are always getting saltwater over them. I take a 2l milk bottle of fresh water with me - if they get a sea over them, I immediately just get the fresh water and pour it over them. It stops the saltwater from corroding everything. That D3 and 24-70, I have continued to use it until last Friday - I needed it and wasn't that fussed. The Nikon Pro roadshow in February, I took my gear in for service and that was when the techy pointed out to me that the lens bayonet on the 24-70 had one screw missing and was slightly bent. I hadn't noticed. :p The pictures hadn't suffered, he did ask if one side was a bit soft, but even at 2.8 I hadn't seen it, neither had any clients. I carried on using it, because they hadn't brought a bayonet with them and besides, the remains of the screw needed workshop work to get it out of the thread before they could fit a new one. I sent it in last Friday, they got it this Monday, it is being despatched today.
You can't ask fairer than that. I have had NO issues with any other Nikon lens since I changed from using Olympus, that was about 1981 or 82. :beer:My regular kit gets really hammered too. The land based outfits get better treatment. I keep some purely for the harsh conditions found doing marine and fishing photography, another set for doing motorbikes and stuff on land. NONE of that has ever had a problem.

:nikon:
 
StewartR said:
Yes.

Last 10 Nikon lenses sent in for repair: average turnaround 28.5 days, best 12 days, 9 out of 10 took 25 days or more
Last 10 Canon lenses sent in for repair: average turnaround 10.9 days, best 3 days, 8 out of 10 took 8 days or less.
Click to expand...

This is what puts me off sending my 750 in for the latest shutter issue. When is there a time I could handle having the camera away for potentially a month?!
 
Stu Meech said:
This is what puts me off sending my 750 in for the latest shutter issue. When is there a time I could handle having the camera away for potentially a month?!
Click to expand...
When my D750 went in for the Flare issue turnaround was under a week.
 
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, spoken purely from the context of being a regular reader of Thom Hogan's blog at dslrbodies.com. I'm sure he'd be interested in this too. Nikon's QA is in serious decline.
 
Lensflare said:
Interesting. My Nikons have held up to constant abuse ands misuse incredibly well.
I told the story years ago (F4s era) of being on helicopter duty at the Class 1 powerboat grand prix around the continent. Coming back after practise session I was sortingmy gear and the pilot banked suddenly and one F4s with 80-200 (the old trombone 2.8) attached went out the door. We were about 80 feet above the landing spot in a grass field. It had a good covering of grass, but even so. When we landed I picked the camera up and everything still worked, including the lens and the zoom and focus. I did send it in for checking after the weekend and the bayonet had been slightly bent. Three screws later and a new bayonet mount was installed. They did it while I waited at Richmod.
My 24-70 2.8 attached to one of the D3 bodies went down the deck of a RIB during a shoot last summer. My bag was on the jump seat, open and I was using the 70-200 on another body. It fell a couple of feet but was a hard alnding because it was like it was 'thrown' AND it got doused by a saltwater wave that came over the top. This happens a lot. My D3 bodies and lenses are always getting saltwater over them. I take a 2l milk bottle of fresh water with me - if they get a sea over them, I immediately just get the fresh water and pour it over them. It stops the saltwater from corroding everything. That D3 and 24-70, I have continued to use it until last Friday - I needed it and wasn't that fussed. The Nikon Pro roadshow in February, I took my gear in for service and that was when the techy pointed out to me that the lens bayonet on the 24-70 had one screw missing and was slightly bent. I hadn't noticed. :p The pictures hadn't suffered, he did ask if one side was a bit soft, but even at 2.8 I hadn't seen it, neither had any clients. I carried on using it, because they hadn't brought a bayonet with them and besides, the remains of the screw needed workshop work to get it out of the thread before they could fit a new one. I sent it in last Friday, they got it this Monday, it is being despatched today.
You can't ask fairer than that. I have had NO issues with any other Nikon lens since I changed from using Olympus, that was about 1981 or 82. :beer:My regular kit gets really hammered too. The land based outfits get better treatment. I keep some purely for the harsh conditions found doing marine and fishing photography, another set for doing motorbikes and stuff on land. NONE of that has ever had a problem.

:nikon:
Click to expand...

If ever I see you in the classifieds I will steer well clear then :p

Could it be use - do the nikons get more use than the canons?
 
cambsno said:
If ever I see you in the classifieds I will steer well clear then :p
Click to expand...

Funny you say that - but the 300 f2.8 and 105DC I am selling at the moment haven't been anywhere near the water!
The 105, I think I have used it maybe a handful of times, portraiture and I did use it on one classic bike, but I wasn't sure of the result on the bike, a bit too quirky. For portraits, which of course is what it is for, it is sublime. Shame I don't get those gigs any more.
 
Lensflare said:
Funny you say that - but the 300 f2.8 and 105DC I am selling at the moment haven't been anywhere near the water!
The 105, I think I have used it maybe a handful of times, portraiture and I did use it on one classic bike, but I wasn't sure of the result on the bike, a bit too quirky. For portraits, which of course is what it is for, it is sublime. Shame I don't get those gigs any more.
Click to expand...
Mmmm 105mm DC <drool>
 
I've a 17-55mm 2.8 and the focus ring is noisy in manual focus really annoying, shame as its a great lens:(
 
What sort of prices are those lenses? Unless they're the el cheapo end I'd probably be writing a stiff letter of complaint to Nikon uk suggesting you won't be using their zooms and will be switching to sigma and tamron and making a big fuss about it :)
 
srichards said:
What sort of prices are those lenses? Unless they're the el cheapo end I'd probably be writing a stiff letter of complaint to Nikon uk suggesting you won't be using their zooms and will be switching to sigma and tamron and making a big fuss about it :)
Click to expand...
They're pro spec lenses.
14-24/2.8 = £1300
24-70/2.8 = £1200
80-400 = £1800
 
cambsno said:
...
Could it be use - do the nikons get more use than the canons?
Click to expand...
I'd have to guess Stewart knows how many of each lens he needs to keep to fulfil likely orders. Surely he wouldn't buy twice as many Canons if the Nikon's are hired out more?
 
Phil V said:
I'd have to guess Stewart knows how many of each lens he needs to keep to fulfil likely orders. Surely he wouldn't buy twice as many Canons if the Nikon's are hired out more?
Click to expand...
It's nice when people assume one knows what one is doing.
 
StewartR said:
It's nice when people assume one knows what one is doing.
Click to expand...
To be fair Stewart, you'd have to be certifiable to build a business getting things like that wrong ;)
 
snerkler said:
When my D750 went in for the Flare issue turnaround was under a week.
Click to expand...
I think that this type of issue is very different. The cause is known in advance, the required parts are known and the repair time is known...it's more of a production line fix and the variable of diagnostic time doesn't impact workload planning.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I think that this type of issue is very different. The cause is known in advance, the required parts are known and the repair time is known...it's more of a production line fix and the variable of diagnostic time doesn't impact workload planning.

Bob
Click to expand...
Nope, my reply was in response to the shutter issue/recall which is the same as the flare issue/recall in which it's a known issue and the parts are ordered in prior to sending the camera in. Assuming one waits for the initial rush to subside I see no reason why the shutter recall should take significantly longer than the flare recall (y)
 
sk66 said:
The 14-24, 24-70, and 80-400 are plastic build and probably plastic gears. I know plastics can be a strong/durable as metal, but this stuff isn't...
Click to expand...
... but more importantly, it appears to be significantly less strong/durable than the stuff Canon uses. That's my point. Why should one manufacturer's kit be so much worse in this respect than another manufacturer's kit?

And also, why don't we see a similar rate of failures on the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR? If Nikon can build that one to be strong/durable, what's going on with the other three?
 
The 70-200 is magnesium alloy.

TBF, I own/have owned all of these lenses (replaced the 14-24 w/ a 16-35) and I've never had an issue... I'm not nice to my kit at all. For me, cases are for storage/transport. When in use they are out swinging/banging into the ground and other stuff. And if they do go into a carry bag, it's typically without caps. I did manage to crack the filter ring on my 24-70 (short drop onto cement), but it's been fine since that I can tell.
FWIW, the 16-35, and 80-400 are probably two of my least used lenses, and the 24-70 falls into the mid-usage range. I have had to send a couple Sigma's in for repair over the years (my 120-300 had the focus mechanism replaced most recently).

I do think the issue is that most manufacturers rely on functioning parts (i.e. helicoid roller/ focus gears) to limit travel. But I know that the newer Canon 24-70 has additional metal guide posts that serve to limit the travel (non-zoom/focus pieces). Maybe it is the installing/removing of the lens that is mashing things... I know I've failed to get the release pin fully retracted initially more than a few times.
 
I know they are not pro lenses but a number of our staff use the 16 to 85vr. Mine is perfect but after a couple of years of 14 issued about 5 have failed. Not focussing, go loose, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top