DSLRUsers.com

About 3 weeks ago, I dropped my 17-35 into Baltronics for repair (or atleast a repair quote) as the zoom function was sticking a bit (suspected sand!). The autofocus was playing up a bit.

Given Gary's other thread about Nikon QC, customer service, etc, I thought I would let you know that Baltronics have not (apparently) had ANY reply back from Nikon Australia regarding availability and pricing of spare parts. This includes numerous phone calls and emails.

Notwithstanding this, I was told that the AF motor may need replacing, which could push the total repair cost to something like $900.

If this is the case, does anyone think I would have a problem saying no to the AF motor replacement and only using the lens in manual focus mode?

I hope that all makes sense.

Cheers

P

Patrick, for $900 I would focus manually

That's what I am thinking, Glen.

By the way, has anyone had experience with Baltronics, particularly in the area of repairs? We had our Bronica repaired by them (shutter problem, fixed for about $250 all up) - the thing is, I have no idea if they are cheap or expensive.

Cheers

P

I'll ask the TA at my old Uni if they get their repairs done there.

I know they've had to find someone else since the Eastern European guy who specialised in older cameras died a year or so ago.

Thanks Leigh,

And, by the way, any damage to the 17-35 was NOT the fault of any camera forum moderators!

P

Patrick, I too have a 17-35 purchased early last year with a busted AF-S motor, for cheap because of said fault. The previous owner said the focus motor was replaced twice previously in the lens' lifetime. Once under warranty, and again at his own expense - at a similar cost to the $900 you have been quoted.

For that amount of money, and not much of a guarantee that it would stay fixed for long, I'm prepared to put up with having to focus manually, especially since it's a wide angle lens where the speed of a silent wave motor is overkill IMO. It's fairly easy to focus with the confirmation indication in the lower left of the viewfinder. Especially with the D200 that you have, its larger viewfinder makes it more comfortable than doing so on a D70 class body.

It's a great lens, but I question the need for super fast focusing, and the fact that it has a f/2.8 max aperture when by all accounts it's meant as a landscape lens, intended to be used optimally stopped down. These 'features' unncessarily adds weight and cost to the lens, which I believe would be poor value if purchased new.

For the cost of the focus repair, I believe there are third party lenses that could be purchased that offer equivalent or close to equivalent performance.

Onyx wrote:Patrick, I too have a 17-35 purchased early last year with a busted AF-S motor, for cheap because of said fault. The previous owner said the focus motor was replaced twice previously in the lens' lifetime. Once under warranty, and again at his own expense - at a similar cost to the $900 you have been quoted.

For that amount of money, and not much of a guarantee that it would stay fixed for long, I'm prepared to put up with having to focus manually, especially since it's a wide angle lens where the speed of a silent wave motor is overkill IMO. It's fairly easy to focus with the confirmation indication in the lower left of the viewfinder. Especially with the D200 that you have, its larger viewfinder makes it more comfortable than doing so on a D70 class body.

It's a great lens, but I question the need for super fast focusing, and the fact that it has a f/2.8 max aperture when by all accounts it's meant as a landscape lens, intended to be used optimally stopped down. These 'features' unncessarily adds weight and cost to the lens, which I believe would be poor value if purchased new.

For the cost of the focus repair, I believe there are third party lenses that could be purchased that offer equivalent or close to equivalent performance.

Thanks for the great summary of your views, and makes a lot of sense.

Granted, having a "like-new" repaired lens with full functionality would be great, but at an additional cost of something like 60% of a new lens (via Poon), would be completely unnecessary.

Cheers

P

I'll say one last thing - you don't know what you've got till it's gone - I miss my 17-35

You can buy a split system air-conditioner from Bunnings for that amount!

Matt. K wrote:You can buy a split system air-conditioner from Bunnings for that amount!

Yeah but I wouldn't advise it - I had one, and it had incurable backfocus!

Cheers

digitor wrote:

Matt. K wrote:You can buy a split system air-conditioner from Bunnings for that amount!

Yeah but I wouldn't advise it - I had one, and it had incurable backfocus!

And what about the condensation?

gstark wrote:

digitor wrote:

Matt. K wrote:You can buy a split system air-conditioner from Bunnings for that amount!

Yeah but I wouldn't advise it - I had one, and it had incurable backfocus!

And what about the condensation?

Don't worry about the condensation. It becomes a real bugger to take a photo inside, and then have to go out into the backyard in the heat, to have a look on the rear LCD

RF

I'll chime in here,

Nikon Aust have only just got a full-time spare parts person on board again.

During the new year period the person who typically issued spare parts to clients left the company and only just now has a new person been sorted out.

Parts are arriving thick and fast at Nikon HQ and there is an incredible back-log of orders which is being dealt with as we speak!

-Lachie

Hi Patrick

Is ther any chance you can claim under household insurance??
I'm in the same boat with my 12-24 tokina ( a lot cheaper of course) when my dog grabbed it off the cabinet ......don't ask.
Can't claim this under camera warranty, unfortunately.I've only had it 2 months!!
Looks like I'll put a household insurance claim in on this, ($100 excess) but worth it, as it is $80.00 just to look at it

Cheers
Marc

Marc, I have thought of that and need to check my policy and ring the insurer. When I do, I will let you know what the response is (bearing in mind that my experience maybe different to yours).

Cheers

P

Yes Patrick

It is an addition to your usual home & contents policy, which of course costs more.

Thanks Marc - I have all my gear itemised under the contents insurance, so will definately check it out.

P