GracieAllen
Senior Member
This is just going to be me complaining and generally whining about Nikon repair service, so if you're not in the mood, skip this topic.........
Nikon f500/f4 AF-S... Good lens. Quite good lens... Until it wasn't. This lens lives in a Pelican Case, in a padded slot. It gets babied FAR MORE than my car, computers, spouse, etc. Year or so ago it started providing images that weren't as tack sharp as they'd previously been. They weren't tack sharp any more on the D300, the D810, OR the D7200.
SO, after screwing around for AT LEAST a year, thinking it wasn't POSSIBLE there could be a problem with the lens - this includes doing the focus adjustment where I shot images from +20 to -20 in increments of "2" to see if the lens was simply back-or front focusing, on TWO different bodies, and STILL believed it was ME, not the lens, I FINALLY decided it needed to go in to be checked...
SO, I jumped through the hoops, taking the D810 and the 500 out to shoot some images up close (20 feet), and far away, ranging from about 50 yards to a couple hundred. Used the trusty Gitzo 3540 XL (which is EXTREMELY STABLE AND HAS NO CENTER COLUMN), Markins M20 ball head (again, very solid), and a 10 pound beanbag to damp any movement on the tripod. AND, of course, mirror-up mode and a remote release. And used the special Nikon software to check 'em, and sent them in the RAW images as instructed, ONE IMAGE PER EMAIL, for Nikon to examine...................................................... And got 'em ALL BACK 'cause they were TOO BIG FOR NIKON TO GET IN THE EMAIL. Which would be OK, except Nikon SPECIFICALLY SAID send RAW images, full size... which means right around 40MB each....
SO, I made them smaller, using the special Nikon software to dump jpegs... This way, they'd be less than 20MB - not MUCH less, but less... And sent 'em, and got 'em ALL BACK AGAIN 'cause Nikon says they HAVE to be less than 20MB. Which they were. SO, I dumped them AGAIN, and told the software to keep them to 10MB or less, and sent them AGAIN......
And got a guy on the phone, who looked at them, and made noises that went something like, "WOW, those aren't even sharp when around the MINIMUM focus distance." Followed by, "Good grief, and the farther away, the worse they get. Yup, there's a problem." Cool... I'm not crazy... He followed up with "It typically runs about $150 for repairs, depending on what's needed."
SO, I shipped the lens off, with $7500 in insurance, gulped a bit at the $150 shipping bill including the special liquid-filled bags that they squeeze to mix the goo, that then gets fitted around the lens to set up into a form-fitting foam protector... Off it went to California. I WANTED to go to the East coast but I'm about 9 feet west of the Mississippi, so they said it HAS to go to L. A.
Some time later I got the estimate for $464. Which I FIGURED meant there was some MASSIVE problem like the autofocus had puked all over itself, or the lens elements had fallen into the bottom of the lens body, or some OTHER gigantic problem that would require umpteen hours to fix and return the lens to perfect...... It wasn't ACTUALLY an estimate since they had a credit card on file, and just went ahead and did the repair without my signature.
And some time later the lens came back... Happy day...
SO, went BACK out to shoot some amazing images with the all fixed, better than new, lens... And just for comparison, I took along the Sigma 50-500 and the Sigma 150-600 JUST SO I COULD COMPARE and MARVEL AT THE ASTONISHING QUALITY OF THE BETTER THAN ORIGINAL, 500/f4.........
Got home. Looked at images... Looked at 'em again. Made 'em 100% and looked close... Odd. These are really nice and sharp... OH, WAIT, those are from the Sigma, these wretched, soft, worse than before images are from the 500/f4 that just came back... Looked at the invoice... OH, the $464 repair was for somebody to REPLACE THE LENS MOUNT and check the auto-focus..... HUH? 15 minutes to unscrew 3 screws and a $50 (my guess) part?
Yup, out to CA, in the shop, back to me, and this POS is as bad or worse than it was BEFORE THEY TOUCHED IT.....
Shot some more images, same way as last time. Called in to Nikon, got another guy on the phone, and went through the same process again... And got the same kind of comments, except this person wasn't as circumspect. More of the, "Wow, that's bad." He could SEE the images from the previous visit, and decided the new ones were even WORSE......
SO, I "requested" a shipping label 'cause I'm not paying to ship this thing again, got one, and sent it again. Today I got the acknowledgement that they have the lens, but it says, "NO PROBLEM DESCRIPTION", so I called AGAIN, and this time I requested a supervisor or manager or someone that lives in a room with a door on it so I could make SURE someone was aware that I was VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE PROBLEM, AGAIN...
He's going to contact service and suggest that the lens be fixed. I "requested" that THIS TIME, SOMEONE - I DON'T CARE IF ITS THE SERVICE MANAGER, OR PRESIDENT OF NIKON USA, ACTUALLY PUT THE LENS ON A BODY, TAKE SOME IMAGES AND VERIFY THAT THE THING ACTUALLY TAKES A SHARP PICTURE BEFORE THEY SEND IT BACK... Don't know if they will, but I'd REALLY like not to have to do this a THIRD time......
In truth, other than the slower maximum aperture, the Sigma is unbelievably good, ESPECIALLY given that it costs about 15% of what the Nikon did... AND it works extremely well with the Sigma 1.4X TC, so overall, if I was a regular photographer, looking for a decent long telephoto without having to dump $7000+, I'd have to look long and hard at the Sigma and/or Tamron alternatives... And EITHER can be hand-held, and can be carried without getting a hernia...
SO, 'nuff whining. I'm awaiting the return of the UNDOUBTEDLY now BETTER THAN ORIGINAL, ASTONISHINGLY SHARP, lens.
Nikon f500/f4 AF-S... Good lens. Quite good lens... Until it wasn't. This lens lives in a Pelican Case, in a padded slot. It gets babied FAR MORE than my car, computers, spouse, etc. Year or so ago it started providing images that weren't as tack sharp as they'd previously been. They weren't tack sharp any more on the D300, the D810, OR the D7200.
SO, after screwing around for AT LEAST a year, thinking it wasn't POSSIBLE there could be a problem with the lens - this includes doing the focus adjustment where I shot images from +20 to -20 in increments of "2" to see if the lens was simply back-or front focusing, on TWO different bodies, and STILL believed it was ME, not the lens, I FINALLY decided it needed to go in to be checked...
SO, I jumped through the hoops, taking the D810 and the 500 out to shoot some images up close (20 feet), and far away, ranging from about 50 yards to a couple hundred. Used the trusty Gitzo 3540 XL (which is EXTREMELY STABLE AND HAS NO CENTER COLUMN), Markins M20 ball head (again, very solid), and a 10 pound beanbag to damp any movement on the tripod. AND, of course, mirror-up mode and a remote release. And used the special Nikon software to check 'em, and sent them in the RAW images as instructed, ONE IMAGE PER EMAIL, for Nikon to examine...................................................... And got 'em ALL BACK 'cause they were TOO BIG FOR NIKON TO GET IN THE EMAIL. Which would be OK, except Nikon SPECIFICALLY SAID send RAW images, full size... which means right around 40MB each....
SO, I made them smaller, using the special Nikon software to dump jpegs... This way, they'd be less than 20MB - not MUCH less, but less... And sent 'em, and got 'em ALL BACK AGAIN 'cause Nikon says they HAVE to be less than 20MB. Which they were. SO, I dumped them AGAIN, and told the software to keep them to 10MB or less, and sent them AGAIN......
And got a guy on the phone, who looked at them, and made noises that went something like, "WOW, those aren't even sharp when around the MINIMUM focus distance." Followed by, "Good grief, and the farther away, the worse they get. Yup, there's a problem." Cool... I'm not crazy... He followed up with "It typically runs about $150 for repairs, depending on what's needed."
SO, I shipped the lens off, with $7500 in insurance, gulped a bit at the $150 shipping bill including the special liquid-filled bags that they squeeze to mix the goo, that then gets fitted around the lens to set up into a form-fitting foam protector... Off it went to California. I WANTED to go to the East coast but I'm about 9 feet west of the Mississippi, so they said it HAS to go to L. A.
Some time later I got the estimate for $464. Which I FIGURED meant there was some MASSIVE problem like the autofocus had puked all over itself, or the lens elements had fallen into the bottom of the lens body, or some OTHER gigantic problem that would require umpteen hours to fix and return the lens to perfect...... It wasn't ACTUALLY an estimate since they had a credit card on file, and just went ahead and did the repair without my signature.
And some time later the lens came back... Happy day...
SO, went BACK out to shoot some amazing images with the all fixed, better than new, lens... And just for comparison, I took along the Sigma 50-500 and the Sigma 150-600 JUST SO I COULD COMPARE and MARVEL AT THE ASTONISHING QUALITY OF THE BETTER THAN ORIGINAL, 500/f4.........
Got home. Looked at images... Looked at 'em again. Made 'em 100% and looked close... Odd. These are really nice and sharp... OH, WAIT, those are from the Sigma, these wretched, soft, worse than before images are from the 500/f4 that just came back... Looked at the invoice... OH, the $464 repair was for somebody to REPLACE THE LENS MOUNT and check the auto-focus..... HUH? 15 minutes to unscrew 3 screws and a $50 (my guess) part?
Yup, out to CA, in the shop, back to me, and this POS is as bad or worse than it was BEFORE THEY TOUCHED IT.....
Shot some more images, same way as last time. Called in to Nikon, got another guy on the phone, and went through the same process again... And got the same kind of comments, except this person wasn't as circumspect. More of the, "Wow, that's bad." He could SEE the images from the previous visit, and decided the new ones were even WORSE......
SO, I "requested" a shipping label 'cause I'm not paying to ship this thing again, got one, and sent it again. Today I got the acknowledgement that they have the lens, but it says, "NO PROBLEM DESCRIPTION", so I called AGAIN, and this time I requested a supervisor or manager or someone that lives in a room with a door on it so I could make SURE someone was aware that I was VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE PROBLEM, AGAIN...
He's going to contact service and suggest that the lens be fixed. I "requested" that THIS TIME, SOMEONE - I DON'T CARE IF ITS THE SERVICE MANAGER, OR PRESIDENT OF NIKON USA, ACTUALLY PUT THE LENS ON A BODY, TAKE SOME IMAGES AND VERIFY THAT THE THING ACTUALLY TAKES A SHARP PICTURE BEFORE THEY SEND IT BACK... Don't know if they will, but I'd REALLY like not to have to do this a THIRD time......
In truth, other than the slower maximum aperture, the Sigma is unbelievably good, ESPECIALLY given that it costs about 15% of what the Nikon did... AND it works extremely well with the Sigma 1.4X TC, so overall, if I was a regular photographer, looking for a decent long telephoto without having to dump $7000+, I'd have to look long and hard at the Sigma and/or Tamron alternatives... And EITHER can be hand-held, and can be carried without getting a hernia...
SO, 'nuff whining. I'm awaiting the return of the UNDOUBTEDLY now BETTER THAN ORIGINAL, ASTONISHINGLY SHARP, lens.