# Nikkor 70-200 VR II lens thread "issue"



## MrLogic (Jan 13, 2010)

I haven't noticed it, but it looks like Nikon has a serious QC problem:

*Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII thread issue: that is normal*

 By [NR] admin | January 12, 2010

*UPDATE:* I received a word that Nikon is looking into this issue and will have an official statement soon. Lets wait and see.
 Here is the translated response from Nikon Beijing Service Center dated 01/11 regarding the previously reported 70-200 f/2.8 thread issue (source: xitek).Failures Observed: lens thread defect at 200mm (the customer believes either thread or its coating peeling off). Inspection requested.
 Maintenance Performed: After inspection, thread of the lens submitted indeed has certain peeling. However, *that is normal when the surface of that metal was manufactured*. There, the alleged problem will not affect the lens performance, rigidness, or function.​






See also: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII problem seems to be wide spread | Nikon Rumors

And: Lets see how widespread this thing is | Nikon Rumors


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 13, 2010)

yikes.... for a $2300 pricetag you'd hope they fix this one quick!

Any opinions if the new VRII is worth the $400-$500 price increase from the first 70-200?  I don't have either but just curious on how they compare to each other from user experience...


----------



## inTempus (Jan 13, 2010)

I did a Google search and this issue is wide spread.  It seems lots of people have a problem with the coating peeling off.

I'm somewhat shocked by Nikons response.  Saying it's not a problem and is a normal byproduct of the manufacturing process is off base.  How many other lenses do they manufacture which share this manufacturing defect?

It seems they continue to catch flak for the focal length issue as well (discussed here).  There is a lot of controversy surrounding this new lens it seems.

On the upside, people report the lens is very sharp.   

Hopefully Nikon does the right thing and recalls the lenses and fixes the problem.  It seems they are trying to avoid this step at all costs right now.  If enough people come forward and complain, they'll have to do something.


----------



## MrLogic (Jan 13, 2010)

jackieclayton said:


> Any opinions if the new VRII is worth the $400-$500 price increase from the first 70-200?  I don't have either but just curious on how they compare to each other from user experience...



As always.... that depends. You may want to read this post:

70-200 VR I and VR II optics: What we know so far: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

... or any of Marianne Oelund's postings on the issue.


----------



## itznfb (Jan 13, 2010)

inTempus said:


> I did a Google search and this issue is wide spread.  It seems lots of people have a problem with the coating peeling off.
> 
> I'm somewhat shocked by Nikons response.  Saying it's not a problem and is a normal byproduct of the manufacturing process is off base.  How many other lenses do they manufacture which share this manufacturing defect?



I'd say it's the only one. It would be all over the net if it was spread across product lines. Why would you be shocked at their response? Any type of failure like this will be downplayed until they have a solution in place. Then they'll go back and apologize... or pretend it never happened. That's the FU consumer best practice.



inTempus said:


> It seems they continue to catch flak for the focal length issue as well (discussed here).  There is a lot of controversy surrounding this new lens it seems.
> 
> On the upside, people report the lens is very sharp.
> 
> Hopefully Nikon does the right thing and recalls the lenses and fixes the problem.  It seems they are trying to avoid this step at all costs right now.  If enough people come forward and complain, they'll have to do something.



I'm glad I didn't ditch my VR for this disaster.


----------



## MrLogic (Jan 13, 2010)

inTempus said:


> I'm somewhat shocked by Nikons response.  Saying it's not a problem and is a normal byproduct of the manufacturing process is off base.  How many other lenses do they manufacture which share this manufacturing defect?



LOL, this guy may be onto something: 


 EdM             Posted January 13, 2010 at 7:57 am | Permalink
                                  Saw the post here, checked my lens which was a XMas gift, and there it was. Fortunately it was purchased from B&H. Lens returned yesterday for refund. Poor workmanship is poor workmanship. None of my other Nikkor zooms show this &#8216;defect.&#8217; *If this thing was made in China then Nikon is in trouble. QC &#8211; nonexistant.*

 :thumbdown: 


My 70-200 VR II doesn't seem to have this issue... yet. My dealer did talk about a "dust" issue, though. Saying there were QC issues... even then... and some of the new 70-200s had "dust" inside the lens. ****ing hell.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2010)

Here is noted Nikon author and follower Thom Hogan's take on how Nikon handles repair and recall issues,and what causes these types of issues.

Hey Thom, no high MP HD video for under 4K, cont. (Part II) [Page 4]: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review

It's a very interesting read.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 13, 2010)

I disagree with the comment about the quality of products produced in China.

China is capable of producing extremely high quality products.  The more you spend, the better the product.  That's true in China, US, UK, etc.  On the flip side, would you say everything made in the USA is of super high quality?  No.  It varies depending on who makes it.

Take Apple for example.  Every iPhone, iMac, Macbook Pro, etc. is made in China.  Not too many people would say Apple products are poorly made.

I have no problem buying quality products produced in China.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 13, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Here is noted Nikon author and follower Thom Hogan's take on how Nikon handles repair and recall issues,and what causes these types of issues.
> 
> Hey Thom, no high MP HD video for under 4K, cont. (Part II) [Page 4]: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review
> 
> It's a very interesting read.


What I find comical are all of the experts on Canon's financials that are posting.  They are saying the 5D2's price was a "panic price" as if Canon doesn't know what it costs them to produce a product and how to manage their profit margins.  The last time I checked, Canon was a multi-billion dollar company that consistently turns profits. 

That thread is a glowing example of why I disregard much of what I read by self professed "experts" on the internet (I'm not talking about Thom).


----------



## MrLogic (Jan 13, 2010)

inTempus said:


> I disagree with the comment about the quality of products produced in China.



Of course, but all Nikon's professional grade stuff is made in Japan anyway. AFAIK. There is no way the 70-200 VR II is produced in China, IMO. Parts of it, maybe, but not the final product. They take pride in that even though it isn't in their best interest.

I believe even the D700 is "made in Japan." A "prosumer" body, no less. The guy was probably "misinformed."


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 13, 2010)

Nikon seems to have jumped the shark trying to meet demand on this one. I'd be absolutely livid if I dropped that kind of cheese on a lens and it had obvious defects. 

And the umbrella statement that all of China has QC issues is probably wrong. I agree with inTempus on that one. Even though this lens is likely manufactured in Japan.


----------



## MrLogic (Jan 13, 2010)

Interesting response from Nikon Norway (if true):


*Unofficial response from Nikon Norway*

 By [NR] admin | January 13, 2010


This is the response from Nikon Norway to a nikongear forum member. I have the feeling the official response from Nikon will not be much different:
There are no error or defect in your lens.
What you see inside the lens from the front are not threads, but a flange that prevents light reflection inside the lens. In the flange there are some very small holes, closest to the pores that occurs natulig during a casting process because of the fine print of the foam used in molding the forms. This does not affect the lens performance in any way. There is nothing to peel off from these small holes. They also look bigger than they really are, due to the magnification of the front lens element.
Nikon will publish an official response during this week as soon as it is available from Nikon centrally.​


----------



## Garbz (Jan 15, 2010)

Is there anything actually wrong with the lens? It's funny how the consumers put all their quality control in the way the lens looks, whereas Nikon themselves would probably have only look at the way it functions.

A lot of people here say oh my god it's a $2500 lens. But really money has nothing to do with it. If the lens works well and shows no visual defect does it matter what the internals look like? More importantly would you be suddenly willing to accept it if the lens cost $1250, or somehow dead set on your opinion that it's a manufacturing fault if it's a $5000 lens?

Incidentally we just bought a $350000 3MW motor with a manufacturing defect made in Switzerland. How's that for quality control


----------



## Derrel (Jan 15, 2010)

Here's a nice little article that discusses how a good-performing lens can be filled with decades' worth of debris,dirt,and crap--and still shoot great!

The Flashlight Test

I have a 50mm f/2 from 1977 that I carried with me in a wheat combine one summer....it's FULL of dust now...still shoots quite well.


----------

