got a bad used lens..

[jcdeboever]

My Holga rattles.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

If a bear shat in the woods, but nobody was there to smell it, would it still stink? I only ask because I think discussing that question might be more fruitful than the back and forth we've been experiencing here in this thread this afternoon and early evening...

 

[SCraig]

In a perfect world fit and finish are perfect. We don't live in a perfect world which is why we have a thing called "Acceptable Tolerances". Sometimes things rattle. Doesn't make them bad, just not perfect.

 

[480sparky]

Taken with my crappy, rattley, idiot/loser 105/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkor.

FWIW, I pulled out the most expensive lens in my stable: The Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8GII ED. You know, the one that's part of the Nikon Tinity?


Guess what. It rattles.

So does my 70-300. And my 24-120. And my 28-300. Heck, even my 50/1.8 G rattles.

My 20/2.8 AF-D rattles. My 28-200 AF-D rattles. My 17-35 AF-D rattles. 200/4 AI? Yep. 50/1.8 E? Yep. Damn! Nikon has screwed me over.

But................

My Tokina 17/3.5SL rattles. So do my Siggy 8mm and 15mm fisheyes. And the Siggy 12-24. And my 150-600 Tamzooka. And my Sigma 28/2.8. Tair 135/2.8 rattles as well.

My Mamiya Sekor 50mm, 90mm and 250mm ALL rattle. So much for medium format.

My Nikkor 65, 90 and 150 for the 4x5 all rattle, as does the Caltar 210.

Think I'm safe in the darkroom? Nope. My 50/2.8 and 135/5.6 enlarger lenses rattle.

About the only lens I own that doesn't rattle is my Nikkor 135/2.8 Ai.



Screw it. I'm hosed.

 

[petrochemist]

Actually, when someone says the least imperfect thing about Nikon, they are attacked from all sides. No Nikon lens has ever been designed with a rattle, yet Darrel is clearly saying that rattles in Nikon lenses are normal. This if true needs to be confirmed by Nikon, or it is a lie. That simple. Why lie? Well that's easy, if you can get people to believe that rattles are normal they will buy the falling apart lens.
PS. Rattles are also not normal in car and truck transmissions, if you hear one, you have problems.

Nikon lenses aren't designed to rattle, but minor rattling noises do not effect their performance. Many lenses with stabilizing elements will rattle if shaken, the elements have to be able to move to correct for camera shake, when not powered there's nothing holding the element firm and it can move between stops making a noise that can be heard. The rattle is not like a child's toy being much quieter, a side effect of the design rather than the intended use.
If a car rattles that generally does effect how it works, on top of being annoying for the people inside.

 

[dannylightning]

If a bear shat in the woods, but nobody was there to smell it, would it still stink? I only ask because I think discussing that question might be more fruitful than the back and forth we've been experiencing here in this thread this afternoon and early evening...

Taken with my crappy, rattley, idiot/loser 105/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkor.

FWIW, I pulled out the most expensive lens in my stable: The Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8GII ED. You know, the one that's part of the Nikon Tinity?


Guess what. It rattles.

So does my 70-300. And my 24-120. And my 28-300. Heck, even my 50/1.8 G rattles.

My 20/2.8 AF-D rattles. My 28-200 AF-D rattles. My 17-35 AF-D rattles. 200/4 AI? Yep. 50/1.8 E? Yep. Damn! Nikon has screwed me over.

But................

My Tokina 17/3.5SL rattles. So do my Siggy 8mm and 15mm fisheyes. And the Siggy 12-24. And my 150-600 Tamzooka. And my Sigma 28/2.8. Tair 135/2.8 rattles as well.

My Mamiya Sekor 50mm, 90mm and 250mm ALL rattle. So much for medium format.

My Nikkor 65, 90 and 150 for the 4x5 all rattle, as does the Caltar 210.

Think I'm safe in the darkroom? Nope. My 50/2.8 and 135/5.6 enlarger lenses rattle.

About the only lens I own that doesn't rattle is my Nikkor 135/2.8 Ai.



Screw it. I'm hosed.

yes it would still stink, but no one would smell it.

and in those photos you posted with the ratteling lens. i can see the rattle in the photos, the background is blury so the lens was not able to stop the motion in the background... that lens sucks...

 

[PondJamesPond]

Taken with my crappy, rattley, idiot/loser 105/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkor.

FWIW, I pulled out the most expensive lens in my stable: The Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8GII ED. You know, the one that's part of the Nikon Tinity?


Guess what. It rattles.

So does my 70-300. And my 24-120. And my 28-300. Heck, even my 50/1.8 G rattles.

My 20/2.8 AF-D rattles. My 28-200 AF-D rattles. My 17-35 AF-D rattles. 200/4 AI? Yep. 50/1.8 E? Yep. Damn! Nikon has screwed me over.

But................

My Tokina 17/3.5SL rattles. So do my Siggy 8mm and 15mm fisheyes. And the Siggy 12-24. And my 150-600 Tamzooka. And my Sigma 28/2.8. Tair 135/2.8 rattles as well.

My Mamiya Sekor 50mm, 90mm and 250mm ALL rattle. So much for medium format.

My Nikkor 65, 90 and 150 for the 4x5 all rattle, as does the Caltar 210.

Think I'm safe in the darkroom? Nope. My 50/2.8 and 135/5.6 enlarger lenses rattle.

About the only lens I own that doesn't rattle is my Nikkor 135/2.8 Ai.



Screw it. I'm hosed.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

 

[480sparky]

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Apparently you don't understand how lenses focus on planes. The point of the image is the rusted case, not the bulb inside of it. The bulb is blurred because it's slightly beyond the plane of focus. Just like the rest of the background is blurred. This was my intention here.... to focus on the texture of the rust.... not the smoothness of the bulb. Of course, you don't comment on the blurred portions of any of the other images, so one must assume you will agree this IS a sharp lens..... despite the fact that it rattles like heck. You also have conveniently failed to address my question: why should quality lenses NOT rattle?

 

[jcdeboever]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[PondJamesPond]

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Apparently you don't understand how lenses focus on planes. The doses point is the rusted case, not the bulb inside of it. The bulb is blurred because it's slightly beyond the plane of focus. Just like the rest of the background is blurred. This was my intention here.... to focus on the texture of the rust.... not the smoothness of the bulb. Of course, you don't comment on the blurred portions of any of the other images, so one must assume you will agree this IS a sharp lens..... despite the fact that it rattles like heck.

The rusted case that is holding the bulb is also not in perfect focus either. This is really not a great photo on any level This photo is in focus the focus point is the smile on the man http://1j0tz32uaqxa49x5k441sti9.wpe...n-LeSieur-Clear_Lake-FLW-Everstart2012-04.jpg Your focus point the case and the bulb are both out of focus. Zoom in and check

 

[PondJamesPond]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have no photos taken with either the 200-500 nor any lens that rattles, so I can not provide these. Sorry.

 

[jcdeboever]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have no photos taken with either the 200-500 nor any lens that rattles, so I can not provide these. Sorry.

How but one of your best ones then? I know you have no rattled lens, you made that clear. You seem to be an expert, let's see what you got.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[PondJamesPond]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have no photos taken with either the 200-500 nor any lens that rattles, so I can not provide these. Sorry.

How but one of your best ones then? I know you have no rattled lens, you made that clear. You seem to be an expert, let's see what you got.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Crane Stance On a recent outing and the eye in the sky as well Hawkeye in the sky

 

[dannylightning]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have no photos taken with either the 200-500 nor any lens that rattles, so I can not provide these. Sorry.

How but one of your best ones then? I know you have no rattled lens, you made that clear. You seem to be an expert, let's see what you got.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Crane Stance On a recent outing and the eye in the sky as well Hawkeye in the sky

that herons neck and bill are lacking detail and look very soft.. you were posting a different link to that photo the other day on the same site, that photo says it was just uploaded, kind of wondering if that is even your photo.

 

[jcdeboever]

.

Sparky, the bulb at the center of your first photo is almost a complete blur, this is not part of the background, so I really do not see why you are so proud of this photo.

Let's see some of your photos.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have no photos taken with either the 200-500 nor any lens that rattles, so I can not provide these. Sorry.

How but one of your best ones then? I know you have no rattled lens, you made that clear. You seem to be an expert, let's see what you got.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Crane Stance On a recent outing

Looks good. So that is what a non rattle lens looks like... That image is from 1998? Hmmm. Something fishy here... No data. What lens, camera? Just curious...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk