AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D Repair Dilemma

[hark]

I've had this lens since I purchased it new in March 1999, and it was seldom used. Since it can't accept a front UV filter, I was always hesitant to use it. In all seriousness, if I used it 6 times before pulling it out a couple months ago, that's about all it was ever used. When I pulled it out recently and used it, I found the aperture won't budge. According to a local camera shop, it might be from damage (no, I highly doubt that's the problem), or the lubricant might be sticky (most likely the culprit). The lens has only ever been in my possession. I keep one camera bag to store all my equipment which is left here at home, and I take a smaller bag with me. This lens has sat in the bag at home for well over a decade.

So I called Nikon to see if I could get an estimate. Sheesh, the cost might range from $44-$199 depending on what's wrong with it. At some point in the future, I know I will get the Nikon 16-35 f/4. So do you think it would be worth getting it fixed? The rep said I could send it in for an estimate. If I decide I don't want any work done, they will return my lens. All it would cost is the shipping. Should I at least send it in for an estimate?

I know it's a good lens....but eventually I will get the 16-35mm. What are your thoughts?

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

Do you have any Nikon dealers nearby that can do repairs??? That lens sells for close to $400 on eBay...

 

[gqtuazon]

Do you have any Nikon dealers nearby that can do repairs??? That lens sells for close to $400 on eBay...

Fred - that has been the average price for that lens for the last 5 years or so when I started considering that lens.

@ hark - the Nikon 18-35mm VR might be worth considering since it is slightly cheaper than the 16-35mm f4.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

Glenn.. I only mention it because if it cost $100 to get serviced and fixed (sounds like simple cleaning may be the only issue) It'd be worth getting cleaned...and fixed... That doesn't negate the fact that he can still look at the other aforementioned lenses... You can never have too many lenses... :loyal:

 

[hark]

Fred, I took the lens into my local Nikon store, but they don't do repairs. They offered to send it to Nikon for me, but I'm sure they would have added an additional fee! When I spoke with Nikon, the rep said they'd check the lens over carefully to see if there are any other problems--so it might be worth getting it fixed unless something unforeseen comes up (but like I said earlier, I know for a fact the lens was seldom used--so I'm annoyed this happened but understand the lack of use probably caused it).

Glenn, I've read some comments about the 18-35mm lens. According to this store, it's not as good optically as the 16-35mm. They said the 16-35mm could be a viable alternative to my 20mm if I ever decide to sell the 20mm but that the 18-35mm isn't nearly as good a replacement. My other option would be to get the 20mm repaired and keep it, get the 18-35mm for something a little wider, but also perhaps get a 14mm Rokinon lens f/2.8 with the focus confirm chip.

So Glenn, how do you like being over there in Japan where they sell a multitude of used Nikon lenses? Seems like you could set yourself up with a nice side business of buying quality used lenses and flipping them here in the states! Lol. :encouragement:

 

[hark]

@ hark - the Nikon 18-35mm VR might be worth considering since it is slightly cheaper than the 16-35mm f4.

I just might get my 20mm fixed so I may forgo the 16-35mm for now. The 18-35mm gets good reviews so I will consider it, and I can supplement with a Rokinon 14mm. Most likely opt for the 14mm first and consider the 18-35mm in the future.

 

[LensWork]

It is common for lenses that are stored for long periods of time without use for the lube to solidify and lead to sticky, balky or complete non-function. This can also happen with the focusing helical of lenses. I have seen many collectable/old (mechanical) cameras and lenses that have become non-operational because the owner thought that by not using the camera/lens it would preserve the value better. Exercising the mechanics periodically will ensure that the lubricants remain fluid and do not solidify or dry-up.

 

[STM]

It is common for lenses that are stored for long periods of time without use for the lube to solidify and lead to sticky, balky or complete non-function. This can also happen with the focusing helical of lenses. I have seen many collectable/old (mechanical) cameras and lenses that have become non-operational because the owner thought that by not using the camera/lens it would preserve the value better. Exercising the mechanics periodically will ensure that the lubricants remain fluid and do not solidify or dry-up.

Many of my AIS lenses are 30 years old. Whether I have used them or not, each month I take each one and move both the aperture and focusing rings from one stop the other repeatedly. I have never had a problem, with the exception of oil on my my 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor aperture blades one time, with any of them and I think this has a lot to do with it.

 

[hark]

LensWork and STM, thank you for the information! I had no idea this would happen. I will make sure to keep the parts moving from now on!

 

[hark]

I shipped my 20mm lens out for repair today so I'll keep everyone posted as to its progress.

 

[hark]

I received the repair estimate of $199 which I approved, but it states that amount might change. I hope it comes down! All the estimate says is the lever won't adjust the aperture which I already knew before sending in the lens.

 

[aroy]

Let us hope that the estimate reduces and you get your lens back in perfect condition

 

[hark]

Let us hope that the estimate reduces and you get your lens back in perfect condition

Thanks aroy! The status still lists it as SHOP so I can't access any info on what's being done. After getting my D600 back with the same oil issue it had when it went into the shop, I will be sure to fully test this lens.

 

[gqtuazon]

Glenn, I've read some comments about the 18-35mm lens. According to this store, it's not as good optically as the 16-35mm. They said the 16-35mm could be a viable alternative to my 20mm if I ever decide to sell the 20mm but that the 18-35mm isn't nearly as good a replacement. My other option would be to get the 20mm repaired and keep it, get the 18-35mm for something a little wider, but also perhaps get a 14mm Rokinon lens f/2.8 with the focus confirm chip.

So Glenn, how do you like being over there in Japan where they sell a multitude of used Nikon lenses? Seems like you could set yourself up with a nice side business of buying quality used lenses and flipping them here in the states! Lol. :encouragement:

Re-selling used lenses is a big gamble and maynot be cost effective since it requires me to travel at least 1 to 1 1/2 hour by train to go to Tokyo or Yokohama area, and depending on the exchange rate, that could also affect the selling price of the lens and include shipping. The other issue is the uncertainty of buyers. Not everyone has a disposable funds to pay for these lenses. There are several stores that sells good lenses and are reasonably priced. Not bad for personal use and not to make money by re-selling it unless the lenses are rare and have a high demand for it like the Nikkor 58mm f1.2 Noct or Nikkor 70-180mm f4.5-5.6 macro zoom lens. Those I can get much cheaper compared to the ebay prices.

 

[hark]

The status of the lens was SHIP until I called Nikon about the problems with my D600 repair. After my conversation about the D600 (never even mentioned this lens being there), I noticed the status of this lens changed back to BILL. I don't know if they went back to make sure it was repaired satisfactorily, but stayed in a BILL status for over 2 days. When I just checked it this morning, the lens was shipped and is out for delivery today. The cost was $224 and change ($199 for the repair, shipping cost, and tax). Hopefully the lens will work properly!

 

[hark]

When a lens gets repaired by Nikon as this one did, should it have a rather visible piece of dust inside? The lens was taken apart to repair. One of the things they did was to clean the aperture blades as well as repair the lever. Prior to sending it in, the aperture was stuck as f/22 so I couldn't see inside to tell if there was any dust. I haven't taken any photos with it yet but just wondered for a price of $199 (and its being taken apart), should it have come back this way? I don't know if I can get a macro shot or not but will try later. It's larger than a very tiny spec.

 

[Marcel]

Well, I for one haven't been too happy about the way Nikon handles their customers at least here in Canada. Doesn't seem better in the US.

 

[hrphotography]

this is late reply, but Nikon quality control has been pathetic lately. they have returned D600 with dirty sensors before. They provide 3 month warranty of their repairs. I hope u had sent it back to them so the lens dust was cleaned in that warranty.

 

[hrphotography]

i got the non D version (used) from ebay for $250 plus shipping



one of the photos i took from it....

 

[hark]

this is late reply, but Nikon quality control has been pathetic lately. they have returned D600 with dirty sensors before. They provide 3 month warranty of their repairs. I hope u had sent it back to them so the lens dust was cleaned in that warranty.

i got the non D version (used) from ebay for $250 plus shipping

View attachment 70559

one of the photos i took from it....

Yes, the lens was sent back immediately, and they removed the dust spec. I was told by a couple different Nikon reps that repairs have a 6 month warranty.

Nice photo with your lens! My repair (including the return shipping since this wasn't a warranty repair) was around $224. What is the non-D version? Is it a manual focus lens?