What's brassing and why the screwdriver slot

[johnd]

Hi, the 300 2.8 I am looking at buying has some brassing according to the seller. What is the likely cause of the brassing and is is bad (and why)?

My second question is why has this lens got a screwdriver slot. I thought this was on lenses that didn't have their own focussing motor so the camera could drive the focussing. This lens is an AFS 300 2.8 type I. I understood AFS to mean it's got it's own internal focus motor. I'm a bit confused.

Also, the seller said he bought the lens from Nikon Australia (Maxwell's) and it was part of the NPS trial/loan stock. Does this imply that a lot of people have been playing with this lens? Is there anything I should be careful ofe seeing this was NPS trial/loan stock?

Image provided below:



Thanks for your help
Cheers
John

[Glen]

John, just checked my AFS 18-70 & 70-200 both have the slot. Does your kit lens? Maybe it is somewhere for the screwdriver to sit? I don't know.

Ask for the serial number and ring Maxwell and ask how old it is. Not that many have been sold so they probably know. I thought NPS just started?

[Glen]

ps Brassing is where the covering finish (black or metal finish) has worn through and a brass colour is evident. It is a wear spot. Ask for a picture of the brassing, this is a fairly recent lens to be evidencing much brassing unless heavy pro use.

[johnd]

Thanks for the replies Glen.

I included an image with this post showing the lens mount with the brassing. Did the image not show up? I can see the photo.

I think the lens has been used fairly heavily even though it's not very old. The seller is Jamie Benaud, a pro photog who runs Australian Images. URL is http://www.australianimages.com.au/index.html

He seems to do a fair bit of sports and aircraft photography and I reckon the 300/2.8 got a bit of use.

With the lens mount having some brassing, but according to seller, no other visible wear signs, would the lens still work OK etc. When spending this sort of money, I'm wanting to ensure I don't get a lemon.

Cheers
John

[RICPIC]

The wear on the mount looks a bit odd; it's concentrated in the corner rather than consistently over the mount surface. Of course, it’s hard to tell from a photo. Having said that, it's not likely to be a lemon. If it was it wouldn't have been used as much as it has.

It would be good if you could play with it for a few hours before handing over the cash.

[gstark]

Just hazarding a guess, but the screwdriver slotmight be there for older cameras thatr might be AF but not AF-S compatible.

I'm thinking in terms of, for example, my F801. I don't know if an AF-S lens would display any performance advantages on that sort of body.

[johndec]

John, I assume you are talking about this lens:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597627591&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

If so, I wonder what else he didn't disclose in the listing? Did he send you that pic after an enquiry? I've been watching this auction, I think I'll pass now...

[johnd]

Ricpic, yes I'd like to but Hobart is a long way from Penrith. One of our members, Barry, who live out that way has kindly offered to have a look at the lens for me.

Good point Gary, I'm sure that's what it's for.

Johndec, yes that's the one. I've been talking to the seller thru email for a couple days now and he told me the following:


Quote from seller:
=============================================

There is no damage to the lens mount. There is a little bit of brassing on one section, but no wear as such. The electrical contacts are all fine, as is the aperture control lever. The lens mounts firmly to the camera with no play. I’ve attached a photo of the mount so you can see for yourself.

As for why I’m selling and the history.....

I actually bought this lens from Nikon Australia (Maxwell’s) in December last year along with another identical lens. The plan was for one of the lenses to be for me and the other for my business partner. But, after I’d got the two of them he decided he didn’t want it after all, and just got a 1.4xTC for his 70-200 instead. I guess we didn’t really NEED 2x 300/2.8s, but I’d already paid for them.

So I still have 1 identical 300/2.8 that I’m not selling. (and in case you’re wondering, it’s not any better than this one, both are equal)

The two lenses I bought were part of the NPS trial/loan stock. They have been with NPS since new, and were both serviced by Maxwell’s before I picked them up. NPS upgraded all their 300s to the new 300/2.8VR, so they sold off a total of six 300/2.8s. Four were the series I and two were the newer seriesII. As I was first to put my hand up, I got to test each of the six and take my pick. The two I got were the best optically, both are stunning. Surprisingly, these two were actually quite a bit sharper than the two series IIs that I tested. I had gone down there assuming that I’d pick the series IIs, thinking that the test was really a formality, but the image quality just wasn’t as good. The series I is a little heavier than the II, but I’d rather have the best quality than save 1/4kg of weight.

I can’t be sure how much use they have had, but the guy at Maxwell’s said that they’ve spend most of their lives in a cupboard down at Nikon. From their condition, I’d say he’s right.

============================================
End of quote from seller


I'm waiting feedback from Barry before I bid.

Cheers
John

[johndec]

I'm not knocking the 300mm 2.8 as it is an amazing lens but I think Jamie's partner had the right idea. You can get a new 70-200VR + 1.4TC (assuming available stock) for much less than a 300 2.8 non VR.

You get 70-200 at f2.8 and 201-280 at f4. Using Vanbar prices (not that I would buy from them at their prices, but for the purposes of the comparison):

300mm f2.8 : $7135.00
70-200 + TC 1.4: $3601.00

Of course the Flying Canine can do much better than that...

[johnd]

Your right John, the 70-200 +1.4TC will give you 280mm (at f4) and VR.
But 300 at 2.8 sounds pretty cool to me. And you can always add a TC to that, mind you, you probably won't be hand holding.

The 70-200VR (or 80-400VR) is plan B, depending on what the 300 goes for.
Cheers
John

[cameraguy21773]

I do see a bit of brassing there which does mean heavy use, and very heavy if this is a relatively new lens. Still, it does not affect the operation of the lens but, since condition is everything at resale, the price should be quite good or I'd pass. Brassing by itself is not a big problem for the lens' operation but it does expose those parts protected by the polished nickel or chrome plating to oxidation which requires constant maintenance.

[Glen]

Johnd, I am with Mike, no big deal with the brassing, but it does indicate some use, more of a problem at resale. Seems an ok price at the moment, good luck whichever way you go

[birddog114]

Ok, now I'm jumping in this discussion:
The lens, particular this one is fairly old.
Though the Maxwell NPS (Not Nikon NPS) is just started at the of last year, but this lens has been circulated around few years now since it was in the hand of Maxwell. It has been travelling around the world and in the hand of many PP as the Loan or Eval.'s program with all the PP who associated with Maxwell.

Last year, Maxwell got rid of some of their old and out of date lenses and it was among that series, Jamie bought it coz he thought, it could be good
But then he . He knew what's he doing and now he's selling it with his fairly explanation. As he mentioned from his email.

I can’t be sure how much use they have had, but the guy at Maxwell’s said that they’ve spend most of their lives in a cupboard down at Nikon. From their condition, I’d say he’s right.

I doubt very much about the above statement.

Buy it if you do have some loose changes to pay for the repair later, and the repairs are not cheap.

The fresh new 300 VR is not much more than this one, save up and get the right one and it'll last for life.

Lately, I heard lot of complains about the Maxwell's NPS, coz no real of Nikon Services or Nikon Tech. in their own hand, all are outsources and they screwed up lot of things.
Not many sastified PP with the services of their equipments in Maxwell's hand when we are talking about pro-gears.

[Glen]

Johnd, it looks like someone has saved you some money

[johnd]

Johnd, it looks like someone has saved you some money

It certainly does Glen. I have contacted him about other options.
John

[Glen]

John, I would imagine that lens in VR, with a 1.4 or 1.7TC as well, would probably be one of the most versatile setups around for telephoto work (excluding small birds etc). I often think when you are making a major investment it is worth buying what you really want, rather than half way there for 3/4 the price

[johnd]

Hi Glen, I have also come round to this way of thinking and am talking to Birddog about various VR options. I've come to the conclusion that for this type of investment, you need to ensure you do it right. No point in taking risks with the type of dollars involved. I emailed Jamie last night to let him know I wouldn't be bidding.

Birddog's advice, as usual, is right on the mark.

Thankyou Birddog and others for helping me to not take an expensive risk.

Regards
John