A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
*NEW* 18-200 nikkor VR lensModerator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Geoff, think your link confirms Birddys thoughts about construction quality of this lens. Birddy is the one suggesting people stock up on 85 1.4, 105 Macro, etc.
It wouldn't surprise me if Birddy was like that european guy who came out here, built a bunker in the Hunter Valley, filled it with Grange then sold it back to aussie restuarants at collector prices. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Birddy had a bunker full of 85 1.4, Noct 58 1.2, etc 
While I can't say for sure, I'd be willing to suggest that it's been Wendelled. My guess is that he's picked it up pretty quickly, and the force exerted by the strap in holding the camera down was fairly heavy, thus causing the damage.
Hard to say for sure, but unreasonable force can cause all manner of problems. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Looks like pretty light pressure to cause this damage. He explains that he was being stealthy, quiet and <b> slow </b> so as to not scare the bird he was trying to shoot - which was in plain view and easily frightened by rapid movement.
I'm fairly easy going as far as lenses go, but anyone who is a little rough with their gear should certainly stay away from this lense by the look of it. The thing is - we really don't know what the construction quality is like of most lenses out there. The most we really hear is anecdotal stories such as this one, which we use to tar a particular lense with. What are the odds that a lot of consumer lenses are built equally as lightly ? Most 'consumer enthusiasts' can't afford to buy a great deal of gear, and most likely look after their gear quite well, so the light build quality is probably appropriate for the intended market segment and usage. Cheers Justin
Pls. send that link to Thom Hogan!
He marked its built and quality high. Get it fellow! it will be one of your collectible items!!!!! At the mini meet on Saturday, I had a brief talk to Sandy Feet, he got the Tamron 18-200 = AU$300.00, this Nikkor "gem" is around $1100.00, and now I know why this Nikkor 18-200VR is more than three times expensive than the Tamron. Coz you can break it in two parts if you want to use its VR II on another lens and keep its optic to use it as non VR lens. the first ever produced lens in the photography history.  Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
kipper, Save up and get two of them, one to show and and one to go 
Or you can stack them up by removing the VRII as seen on the link and make it 400mm VR II, no doubt!!!!!! Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
Based on the meticulous research from our very own destruction tester, we know that any equipment
can be damaged or rendered unusable by the operator. And in those cases, there has been no suggestion of the problem being with build quality. However, onto the lens breaker......
Interesting. Picked up a medium heavy camera by a lightweight DX lens
Interesting.
Not really a serial offender in the equipment breaking stakes
I would say that, based on what has been said, that it is by no means conclusive in relation to the lens. I don't think there is any doubt that photographic equipment requires careful handling, or that the handling in this case was not sufficiently careful - the broken lens is offered as evidence. Maybe the 18-200 isn't strongly built, but this incident is far from conclusive. I wouldn't lend gear to this bloke. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Justin,
Given that the original poster of this article - the person who actually committed this Wendelling - says
I'm rather confused about your statements. I accept - and I said - that there's no real evidence as to how much force was used, but this guy readily admits that he himself doesn't know, and that he was "pretty distracted" at the time. To me, that is highly suggestive that whatever the force involved was, it was more than likely to be more than reasonable, and trhe results are clearly evident. Seeing as how he was "distracted" and unaware of the force involved, your statements that this was done slowly and delierately simply don't seem to fit at all. As Greg suggests, don't go lending this guy your gear. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
And don't forget that you can buy some anti-wendelling at your local Post Office Shop.  g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
{offtopic}And of course, you refer to an object having undergone "wendellification".{/offtopic} Ouch! at that photo! Honestly, who picks up their camera by the extended part of the lens? i admit to occasionally handling my D70s by the lens, but only grip the solid part of the barrel that's attached to the mount, as close to the body as possible.
Ladies and Gentlemen do not get too excited about this lens breaking I have seen inside the kit lens and one other which I can't remember and I would say the build quality and design is across all Nikons plastic lens .
My kit lens broke in about the same area and 1 of 3 small cast metal lugs broke and the lens went to heaven . LOZ
Come on Guys, give Wendell a ... break ....
We luvs ya Wendell! (someone had to stick up for him) Deb Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Nikon F100, Nikon 18-70mm, Nikon 50mm, Nikon 17-55mm, Nikon 85mm, Nikon 24mm, Nikon 60mm, Nikon 105mm, Tamron 70-300, SB800, SB28, LSPJ
all this 'wendelling' comments just rolls off my very sleek and sexy back
and PEOPLE if you woked as a press photographer even for 1 day you would end up with some sort of damage full stop.
No, and it's a wrong statement same as falsed advise. Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
Especially if you get sent to photograph Mark Latham
Or worked, even. Actually, I have, with quite a lot of dropped and dented cameras as a result. But over a period of siomething like 30 odd years, none of my Nikons have needed to go into the repair shop as a result of any such damage; they just keep on working. So, two points ... the damage my gear has acquired has never, ever been atttributed to anything except user abuse. And my gear continues to work. Go figure. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
you were using old nikon cameras they were built much stronger back then(i had this discussion with leigh man times he said all the old nikkon stuf was belt much better in the old days) I should post a picture i took from the other guys i see on the press circuit thier cameras look like crap
Camera's are the tools of a Press Photographer.
You don't see a trademan with shiny spanners and scuff free drills and saws. If you work with your tools then the stuff is going to show signs of use, it comes with the territory.
My experience is that Nikon gear of any age has an amazing ability to stand up to a certain amount of abuse. For instance, who can forget seeing Onyx's kit lens falling out of his shirt pocket onto a hard roadway surface, and suffering no real damage. And that's supposed to be one of the more lightly constructed lenses. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
thanks craig you understand...finally someone
Signs of use is one thing. Cameras showing signs of use is perfectly acceptable, but that doesn't mean that they're poorly constructed, or lemons. And ususally, those signs of usage will accumulate over an extended period of time, rather than within their first few days of use. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Tear and wear are difference issues in a long term using your gears with acceptable degree.
Broken your new gears often after few days/ weeks in use are difference manner and it's not a proof to prove or tell it as a lemon. Does all the PJs or PPs broke their new gears in few days use in the field, I doubt about it. The tradesmen won't break every each of their high quality gears in few days or few weeks. Problems will happen if the tradesmen or PPs break their new gears often by mis-used or abusing or didn't know how to use their gears properly. Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
I am really impressed with the nikon gear. When I was in NZ, I slipped while touring a glacier. Camera, lens and Me landed hard and slide for 1 or so metres. It was a bit wet, I was bruised, but it still worked.
Well we did end up buying one, 8th Feb. $1150.
My wife likes it, and it was bought for her on the D70, so that's the main thing. What do I think of it? Overall, happy I suppose - I don't feel the money is wasted because wife is happy, it does a reasonable job, and it won't be me using it. What do I mean by reasonable, I hear you ask... General photography and all seems fine. The VR works well, even impressively. If you push the VR too much you get soft shots, to be expected. Where I see the downfall in this lens is the amount of chromatic arberration when you've taken a distant shot with light against dark - for example, a scenery shot of a mountain in the shade, with the sky behind it. The dark rocky outline of the mountain will have a red hue to it. It's particularly noticeable at full zoom. Photoshop corrects this to a quite acceptable extent, but it's fiddling and it would be better not to have to. For all other respects, this lens does a pretty good job. I intend posting samples when I get time, even giving thought to doing my own review on this lens. Time does not permit at the moment - some may have noticed I have been absent for a while. My summary at the moment is, if you can live with the cost of having CA for the shots described at the reward of having one lens to do all this one does, then it is an OK lens - certainly very convenient to have that range available instantly when travelling or bushwalking. I reserve my right to change my mind on that score. But whatever I may say about it, my wife is happy and that counts for *a lot*
Still trying to decide whether I need a 70-200 or 80-400 for the D200. Thinking the 70-200 and a teleconverter would be the better option, but that's another topic for another place and not before some serious saving $$$. Share what you know, learn what you don't.
Wilderness Photography of Tasmania http://www.tasmaniart.com.au
|
Bob.
