I was most disappointed with the images I obtained during our recent trip to Florida. Many telephoto shots appeared out-of-focus despite the well-regarded image stablilization (vibration reduction) built into the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX attached to my new Nikon D90 body on it's debut outing. As was my habit, to protect my investment the lens was fitted with a screw-on skylight filter. I couldn't believe how poor my shots were when viewed on a 24" display: Was the camera (still in warranty) malfunctioning? Had my photographic skills regressed? Could something be wrong with the (now out-of-waranty) lens? Why was the centre of some images sharp, with progressive blurring or even 'double vision' towards the peripheries? These were questions for Nikon to answer.
The image below illustrates the problem nicely (showing why I discarded 4 in 5 images I shot). It was taken in bright sunlight while standing still, handheld with VR active, on Auto program mode at f7.1 with a shutter speed of 1/200th of a second. AF lock was confirmed in Nikon View and corresponds to the central circle overlaid on the image:
The bannisters in the central circle are in sharp focus; the bannisters in the peripheral circles are blurred, perhaps even double, with the amount of blurring seemingly worsening as you move towards the image edge. Each circle is the same focal distance from the sensor.
I was at a loss to understand the optics behind such a result, and my local camera store recommended I speak to Nikon Direct for advice. This I did, opening a customer query on the Nikon UK website and attaching some sample images as requested for an initial opinion. Nikon agreed something was odd, but couldn't say which piece of equipment might have a fault. I was asked to send the lot in for diagnostics which I did, eager to know if the fault lay with me or my equipment. It was a rather costly exercise:
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Special delivery | £22.50 |
| Second group tube unit | £132.32 |
| Labour | £59.63 |
| VAT | £28.79 |
| Total | £243.24 |
Ouch! Of course nobody relishes an unexpected cost like that, but the repair raised several interesting points for reflection:
- Why did it take Nikon 6 weeks from receipt of the equipment (24.04.09) until sending it back (12.06.09)? During this time I was without a camera, and that delay is unacceptable given the cost of the repair. No wonder I hear of folk keeping their old Nikon bodies around for 'back up'!
- The repair itself represents an opportunity cost, being over half the price the lens new. Should I have looked to a Tamron or Sigma equivalent and had a new lens under warranty—giving up the VR which, for all I know, may be mostly marketing hype?
- When asked to provide me with an illustration showing what the 'second group tube unit' actually was why did Nikon refuse, saying they couldn't do so for copyright reasons?
- Nikon did agree that the fault was caused by component failure, and there was no evidence of physical damage to my equipment. I appreciate that no manufacturer can guarantee immunity from defective parts, sloppy manufacturing processes, or inferior labour—but is it right that repair of a premium product in such circumstances should cost no less than when the problem is due to mistreatment by the end user?
The lens certainly feels different in use: the annoying creep has gone for one thing (it's no longer a horse). I have run some tests using the lens hand-held, on a tripod (using the timer), with VR on/ off, with the skylight on/ off, and varying the aperture to assess the role of depth-of-field: all seems well.
To think I came so close to putting my Nikon gear on eBay and reverting to a point-and-click (where, if you don't expect much, you can't be so disappointed!).
![[Photo of Bruce McKenzie]]()
Glad to hear you have your lens back and all seems well now.
With a month and a half turnaround time, they should have given you a serious discount at the least, for being without your camera all this time.
Did they give you a repair estimate?
Fill you in what the part replacement cost would be?
Or offer a choice whether to repair or upgrade to a new lens? (and they'd sell your lens as a refurbished one) I guess that would only happen under warranty. Still, I think it had to be some type of manufacturing "defect" or assembly flaw that showed up over time. Of course without knowledge or proof if it is something more systemic, they won't pick up the tab. Considering infrequent use (not a pro clicking thousands of shots every week), no signs of abuse nor excessive use my feeling is they should have covered the cost. But businesses of course have their policies for a reason and are for profit.
---
Somewhat OT; I had an interesting run-in with Averatec once with a brand new small notebook with several issues out of the box. We mailed it in, only to have it come back - three weeks turnaround time - with the exact same issues and even a disconnected optical drive. After several months of this back & forth (with tons of documenting on my part) mailing it in again and returning still defective; I couldn't return it to the store any more and Averatec's more executive customer service decided I qualified for a refurbished notebook (like I wanted that!) or would buy back the notebook at 2/3 or so of the price ... because the system had in the mean time been "used for many months", even though I had proof it had issues from day 1. The system time it had was me diagnosing & documenting the issues, and the rest was purely being in transit on the delivery trucks and in their repair shop, which was a complete waste of time. Anyway, we took the check for 2/3rds of the cost (or whatever it was) and ran with it, so to speak.
Product issues happen, but this was complete incompetence and lack of care at their tech department. Needless to say, I will never buy anything Averatec again ;)
With HP our under warranty dealings have been far more pleasant and faster. They either mail me the part or in case of a notebook they'll even pay overnight shipping both ways with 3 day turnaround.
---
Btw, is there a warranty on Nikon's lens repair? Do they give you an extra 6-12 months?
I call BS regarding the copyright issue with visually pointing out where the issue is/was. They don't have to reveal anything proprietary and easily could point it out on a cutaway of any somewhat similar lens (see this for example http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/images/D3R_4636-cutaway-950.jpg -- http://nikonrumors.com/2009/05/31/is-this-patent-for-a-new-nikon-80-400mm-f45-56-lens.aspx ) or give you a non-technical illustration or even a quick hand-drawn sketch ... and you'd be satisfied. Plus chances are their lenses are registered with the patent offices which have descriptions & diagrams available.
The repair bill stings and the blurry photos are what they are, but hopefully you can now get years of troublefree use and excellent shots out of it.
Icerabbit yes, I had the choice of authorizing repair at any cost or getting an estimate first. The repair is guaranteed for 6 months; I guess they don't have excessive confidence in their parts of workmanship! I agree with your assessment in relation to the 'copyright' issue over detailing the problem to paying customers.
That was quick!
Knock on wood everything will be fine till you find your camera too obsolete to use :)
In August 2008, I bought a Nikon D300 with an 18-135mm kit lens. Earlier this year I began to take terrible pictures - or rather the camera did! The lens had real problems focusing in any light, and also became very noisy. I returned it under warranty for repair - this was away for 6 weeks! I received no explanation or fault diagnosis. So I decided to look on a few blogs and guess what - many other people had had the same problem. And can you believe, this another lens which I bought in August of this year has an internal mark on the rear lens. What kind of quality is this Nikon? I've been told by the supplier to send it to Nikon in Richmond, for repair - what, for another 6 weeks whilst they fix this too! I'm not a happy chappy!