What s Going Wrong at Nikon?

[glenerrolrd]

If you read Diglloyd s blog you will see that the last two or three expensive pro lenses have all had major QC issues.

1. First the 70-200/2.8VR2..decentered .
2. 300/2.8VR2 nano coated...decenteed,soft .
3. new 24/1.4 ....AF problems.

The designs all seem to be world class but the samples have been awful and I don t mean just a slight differences in edge sharpness.

First you can t get the lenses and then if you get a bad one yikes.

I did get a bad copy of the 24-70/2.8 last year and they tuned it perfectly at one of the USA repair sites and had it back to me in 2 weeks.

 

[Vivek]

As long as there is demand they will do what they wish.

Just recall what happened to the demand and prices of the discontinued 28/1.4 lens after D3 hit the market. Every crappy sample got sold immediately for a lot more than what they retailed for.

The 24/1.4 is a legend in the making.

 

[Lars]

QC problems in new products... how unique.

It's more worrisome if Nikon doesn't respond quickly though.

 

[Hacker]

Maybe I'm lucky with the 24mm and the 70-200mm. No issues at all for me.

 

[shtarka1]

I got a Stellar Copy of the 24, 1.4....Luck I Guess....Im Loving it! Sorry to hear about the quality issues others are having...

 

[glenerrolrd]

Wow the consensus is that this is normal and should be expected with new products.

 

[Vivek]

Elsewhere, there was fierce debate on this very topic. What I got out of that was: Befriend your Nikon dealer so that they will allow you to cherry pick the best sample they have (apparently this is fairly common with a lot of Nikonistas- smart folks).

 

[jonmanjiro]

No problems whatsoever with my copy of the AF-S 24mm f1.4. The AF is way more accurate than I can manually focus, even on my F6 with a focus screen for manual focusing installed.

 

[tetsrfun]

The designs all seem to be world class but the samples have been awful and I don t mean just a slight differences in edge sharpness.
**********
My bad experience was with the 70-200 VR II. Great lens but my first copy had a severely pitted light baffle and a lot of silver "sparkles" inside. Nikon's response to me via e-mail was that these issues don't affect image quality and therefore met specs for the lens. I think that was also the consensus on web sites.

I sent my first copy back and waited three months. I then went to several Nikon dealers and inspected their stock. None of the dealers said that they were aware of the "problems". I showed one store manager the defects and asked if he would pay full retail for that copy and he said "no", but I suspect that the next customer didn't get "full disclosure". A few weeks ago I re-ordered from Amazon and that copy had a perfect baffle and a few sparkles and I kept it.

In the whole process, I was surprised by what seemed to be a majority of customer's response on the web, that if it works who cares about a few defects. To me it was no different than looking at a new car with "orange peel" paint and saying that won't affect performance, I"ll take it. With a passive customer base, Nikon or any other manufacturer has no reason to have excellent QA.

Steve

 

[ptomsu]

I had similar issues with ALL camera brands I owned - Leica, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, even Hasselblad. The point is though, how these issues are fixed. And I have only best experiences with Nikon. It all depends how educated and knowledgeable the representation for a certain vendor is and how friendly people are there.

PS:

Best in fixing problems was/is Hasselblad.
Worst was actually Olympus. But I nevertheless love my EP2

 

[glenerrolrd]

Please read the threads at diglloyd.com for the results of his testing and surveys. There are also links at Nikon Rumors to other threads on the 24/1.4 focus issues. Personally I find these useful as I rarely would take the time to test this many AF conditions .

I used a 24-70/2.8 that had real sharpness issues at f2.8 for 6 months until I tested it against another copy and found out my lens was bad. Talked to my dealer (who is a good friend)..he said this happens frequently with the zooms and that Nikon knows exactly how to fix it. Two weeks later I have a great 24-70/2.8 . It was awful wide open in good light which I would never have guessed since in good light I would be at 5.6 where it was decent.

The 24/1.4 looks more severe than normal. And wow I want that lens ....two dealers canceled my orders because Nikon indicated that they had no idea when the lens might be available again. So its not like I am seeking problems. I would be happy to try a few and send one back to Nikon if required for repair.

Three lens tests in row at diglloyd tells me they have problems .

 

[Lars]

Wow the consensus is that this is normal and should be expected with new products.

Roger I hope you didn't take my tongue in cheek comment above as consensus I'm just saying that QC problems for new products is nothing new, in any industry. Of course it should not be accepted, the more noise the market makes the more likely the manufacturer is to react.

 

[Bill_Green]

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is anything new. I don't currently shoot Nikon, but have several colleagues who do. Of all the lenses purchased over the past three or four years, I think more than half of them have gone back at one point or another for work. The worst of the bunch was a 12-24 zoom. According to Nikon, every part of the lens was in spec, but they were all so close to the extreme of the spec that the lens was almost unusable. It was kind of OK on a D200, but a D2x was a disaster.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I wonder if anyone has been interested enough to read the report put together at diglloyd.com? I say this because there are referenced dozens of individuals with 24/1.4 lenses that have erratic AF..well beyond sample variation. Does that not appear to be a new situation?

 

[Vivek]

Speaking for myself, I do not read any reviews, regardless of who does these things. Even if I do, they do not affect my perceptions or experiences in any way. If a gear would not work for me the way I expect it to work, it is useless to me.

When BGLOD stuck my first digital cam D70, not a single individual or group or site acknowledged it as due to a flaw in the manufacturing. Nikon did not acknowledge it until much later. A forum I participated at that time ridiculed me as "anti Nikon" (trouble with all the gear based groupings). My money was down the drain and to top that of with the me made to feel that I did something wrong to kill the cam. I do not trust any gear manufacturers. They are out there to make money and to answer to their shareholders. Customers do not matter any single one of them (a few select "reviewers" might be relevant to them ).

So...

 

[Paratom]

I have had much better luck with Nikon lenses / bodies compared to Canon.
Maybe I am a lucky guy but my 24-70, the 24/1.4 and 70-200VRII all work just fine on my D700.
3 months ago I mad a journey into Canon-equipment (7d + various lenses) and gave up because of focus problems I couldnt handle.
Some years ago I had Canon and my 24-70 Canon had to be replaced 2 times.

 

[Dustbak]

I have a perfect sample of the 24/1.4 as well. Phenomenal lens.

I had the pitted baffle on the 70-200/VRII. I think Nikons stance on the 70-200VRII was/is ridiculous. How can you claim something to be within spec but also make sure newer versions are free of the 'non-defect'? I have kept my copy of the 70-200 since I only had very mild pitting but it still leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I had an almost stuck zoom mechanism on my first 24-70. I exchanged this one.

I certainly hope Nikon will resolve the 24/1.4 issue swiftly. I know AF consistency will be the next extra thing I check when buying a new lens.

1) Check inner baffles for pits and debris.
2) Check smooth operation of focus.
3) Check smooth operation of zoom (if available).
4) Check AF consistency on various distances at all points
5) Etc..

I can tell you, I almost check new lenses better than 2nd hand. They obviously need it. I will never buy another Nikon lens unseen. I can only advice others to do the same until Nikon gets its act together.

Now, I am waiting for the first reports on the 16-35VR that I got last week...

 

[Steen]

I have had much better luck with Nikon lenses / bodies compared to Canon. (...)

My experience as well.

So I think Roger has a point that the recent amount of problem situations is not quite normal for Nikon and shouldn't be expected to this extent with new products from Nikon.
Looks like a bit of a new situation. Hopefully they will be able to identify and solve the problems.

 

[Vivek]

Not new at all.

When they were still selling AiS lenses and AF lenses (not even D), lenses got shipped with dust, lots of them.

Only a few years ago, one Nikon poobah pledged that they will pay attention to QC.

It is the same old same old.

(Any comparison to Canon, Sony, Leica, etc sound very much like an excuse and a bad one).

 

[glenerrolrd]

Take a look at Thom Hogan s post of May 25th. Here is a guy that has followed Nikon essentially for a living. He divides the business into a consumer and serious units. Most of the consumer side is produced in asia ....most of the serious product is produce in Japan.

Both sides of he business have problems. The consumer side just doesn t have competitive products and but has decent availability of product. The serious side has some best in class products yet can t deliver and is experiencing quality control issues.