Come to think of it, yes I may be confused, I think it may still in production :think: You can try with NSC, I am not sure if they waive, but maybe some discount
Eighteen to Two Hundred VR again....
- Thread starter lsisaxon
- Start date
Come to think of it, yes I may be confused, I think it may still in production :think: You can try with NSC, I am not sure if they waive, but maybe some discount
Come to think of it, yes I may be confused, I think it may still in production :think: You can try with NSC, I am not sure if they waive, but maybe some discount
Well, guess so. Hope that Nikon supports their supporters hahaha.
Well, Jonathan did say that he welcomes anyone with a problem to contact him and they will evaluate on a case by case basis. They can do something about it if it's deemed to be a genuine case of defect.
LOl, then I should bring my old Nikon cams and even the flim compact Zoom500AF (which is not working) and claim manufacturer defect cos it is no more working as it should have. :sweatsm::sweatsm::sweatsm:
How long it lasted you? I think the keyword here is reasonable. I think lasting 5 years before something needs to be changed is reasonable enough for me. I'm willing to pay for that. But one or two years for the case of my 18-200VR is way too short. I made so much noise because the problem recurred immediately within a month after the first repair last year and I had to send the lens in again.
Let's see if Nikon want to hire me to do failure analysis for them.. ;p Just kidding..
V
vince123123
Guest
Oh my, I must not be as technically inclined as you 
I really need to examine very closely before I can see anything; not sure if I'll notice it in everyday shots. Hence, I guess I'll go by the shaking method to see
I really need to examine very closely before I can see anything; not sure if I'll notice it in everyday shots. Hence, I guess I'll go by the shaking method to see
V
vince123123
Guest
You can claim lor, but chances are it won't be considered to be a "manufacturer defect" if you are talking about such old products.
Yes, reasonable is the word. In the case of unreasonable failure, we as consumers must not hesitate to take the manufacturers to task
Yes, reasonable is the word. In the case of unreasonable failure, we as consumers must not hesitate to take the manufacturers to task
lsisaxon said:
Thats bad.. the 80-200 AFD is still on sale in the market currently althought it is history compare to the 70-200, its image quality is almost on par with the 70-200 except the VR and AFS. The problem with Nikon now is not only the 80-200 is using the same fragile plastic rings but numerious AFD lenses and thus they are avoiding the problem and blame it on wear and tear. This is a fact and can't be deny. Search international forums and there are tonnes of the same AF/MF ring crack problems (and almost all the crack occurs at the same position of the ring). What ever the reason.. it is not right to ask the consumers to pay for the mistakes made by them instead they should hear from the customers and make amendment to their own mistakes. Thats is if Nikon really value their customers.
To be frank if the design of the AF/MF plastic ring is a good design i wonder why the newer lenses like the 70-200 vr not using back the same ring?:bsmilie:
V
vince123123
Guest
Now that you mentioned it, I think my 80-200 is also cracked. But for me, it doesn't seem to impair functionality; also maybe I don't use it that much.
It doesn't need to because it's AF-S and using the M/A clutch mechanism. The old ring is to move a gear to engage/disengage the focusing ring or the AF drive shaft.
I would say the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 or the AFD 80-200 F2.8 compliments yr current setup much better;p
I was told that the internals of the new VR II is essentially the same as the old VR. But having the assurance of NSC, I think we can choose not to worry too much since they believe that these are isolated incidences.
I have sent my lens in and they have loaned me a VR II, so I might do a review when I'm free. But I guess it's going to be every bit identical to the old lens except for the zoom lock switch.
.Hack
Senior Member
Was thinking of that too.
But intending to get a "All-In-One" zoom for my vacations overseas.
I believe the only diff between the new and old is just the additional of the zoom lock?
Based on the Nikon website http://www.nikon.com.sg/compareproductitems.php?p=1324-08eb88990c,825-ff2662b928.
The specs are totally identical.
And they also market the new 18-200 as VRII, but i thought all along 18-200 is already having VRII technology?
Was thinking of that too.
But intending to get a "All-In-One" zoom for my vacations overseas.
I believe the only diff between the new and old is just the additional of the zoom lock?
Based on the Nikon website http://www.nikon.com.sg/compareproductitems.php?p=1324-08eb88990c,825-ff2662b928.
The specs are totally identical.
And they also market the new 18-200 as VRII, but i thought all along 18-200 is already having VRII technology?
Yes, the old lens already has a VRII technology. My 18-200VR is exactly for the same purpose of travelling light. I though about the Tamron as well but the aperture of f/6.3 at the long end puts me off because that's going to cause a lot of hunting in the AF department.
An option for you would be to bite the bullet and get it first because optically, it's really a good lens for the zoom range. When the problem with the FPC does crop up a couple of years down the road then see what NSC can do for you.. :dunno: It's a hassle but I'm put off by the electronic incompatibility issues with 3rd party products.
Last edited:
Sometimes its just the manufacturers themselves. Dont forget that Nikon dont build these lens: they design and outsource to the cheapest subcons that qualifies to their scale. The problem is, for some IDM/OEM like Nikon, because of cost pressure, they allow subcons to qualify alternative materials (parts, adhesive, etc) as long as it meets the quality & design requirement. These "alternates" may prove promising, exceeding the defualt, during test stage and at the start but in the long run, and in mass production scenario, consistency of the quality is the issue. Irregarless which part of the world they are from. Thus, quality has price to pay is true in this case. I have the impression buying Nikon is paying for the quality. Sad to say, now the our world has become consumerism... quality, being overused and misinterpreted , is slowly going down the drain.
This maybe going out of the topic already, but I just want to share my 2cents worth about the 'cheaper material'.
Im a newbie on photography per se but my work/profession deals with electronic parts, materials and assembly. I do catch up on the technicalities...
Also, thanks for this insight, really considering to get the 18-200VRII but with this info...i guess need to look for alternatives.
Cheers!
.Hack
Senior Member
But if i'm not wrong the Tamron 18-270 is also f5.6 at 200mm right?
The Tamron does seems tempting for that range and VC.
Have to agree that i'm leaning towards Nikon for the optical quality.
And towards Tamron for the extraordinary zoom and VC.
Some reviews that the VC is much better than Nikon's VC.
I am willing to meet up with TS to go down to Nikon Service Center about this issue as well.
My 18 - 200 mm also has a VR issue and I really pissed too.
So if TS needs support for this case, just PM me and we can arrange a time to go down and knock on NSC and get them to ACKNOWLEDGE their design flaw. :angry:
My 18 - 200 mm also has a VR issue and I really pissed too.
So if TS needs support for this case, just PM me and we can arrange a time to go down and knock on NSC and get them to ACKNOWLEDGE their design flaw. :angry:
.Hack
Senior Member
Another Nikon user having issues with the 18-200 VR.
Damn, seems that more and more people having issues. :thumbsd:
Similar threads
