Nikkor 70-200 VRII mount problem?
cab.in.boston
Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
I do not own the above lens (I wish...) but a friend recently bought one and I had a chance to play with it over the weekend. Beautiful lens, if only I had the means...
She had it on a D700, and the first thing I noticed was that the lens would rotate back and forth just slightly, maybe a degree or two. It seemed loose to me. She said she'd never noticed. I wondered if the mount on her D700 was loose, so I put it on my D300, and had the same problem. When the lens was mounted on the tripod, I could rotate the camera body just slightly back and forth, and it definitely changed the angle of the scene in the viewfinder.
I am assuming this is NOT normal, correct? I'd think a lens of that caliber should have a rock solid connection to the body. None of the lenses I own show anything like this kind of loose mount. Anyway, I told her that I was pretty sure it was not right and that she should have it checked out. Was I wrong, is this a common and/or normal condition? I just can't believe this is within the tolerance of the F-mount...
She had it on a D700, and the first thing I noticed was that the lens would rotate back and forth just slightly, maybe a degree or two. It seemed loose to me. She said she'd never noticed. I wondered if the mount on her D700 was loose, so I put it on my D300, and had the same problem. When the lens was mounted on the tripod, I could rotate the camera body just slightly back and forth, and it definitely changed the angle of the scene in the viewfinder.
I am assuming this is NOT normal, correct? I'd think a lens of that caliber should have a rock solid connection to the body. None of the lenses I own show anything like this kind of loose mount. Anyway, I told her that I was pretty sure it was not right and that she should have it checked out. Was I wrong, is this a common and/or normal condition? I just can't believe this is within the tolerance of the F-mount...
0
Comments
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Wow, maybe this is normal. Frankly I'm stunned that there's that much play in the mount, particularly on a lens like this. It could definitely ruin your day if bracketing a shot on a tripod.
Thanks for checking yours out.
My site 365 Project
None of my other lenses does this either.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Why do you think it would make any difference from shot to shot? I agree it seems odd, but how could it affect anything from shot to shot? Not arguing, just asking.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Because when I had the lens mounted on my tripod, the camera body could rotate back and forth just a tad, but enough to change the image in the VF. If not careful (and not using a remote release), you could inadvertently rotate the body between brackets, which could negatively affect you if doing HDR or panos. It's probably not a huge deal, obviously it's an amazing lens, but I just was very surprised to see this, when a lens as cheap as my 35 f/1.8 mounts solidly and doesn't wiggle at all.
My site 365 Project
RIGHT! I see your point. I was thinking bassackwards. With the camera mounted to the tripod there would not be an issue. With the lens mounted to the tripod, uh-oh. WTF, Nikon?!?!?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Yup. And I'm aware some people mount the camera to the tripod with the 70-200, but it seems a bit heavy to do that for my tastes. I'd much prefer to use the tripod foot and not stress the mount on the body with all that weight hanging off of it.
My site 365 Project
If this is truly a concern you might consider having the mount replaced on the lens. It would probably be a considerable cost but it might alleviate the problem. Of course it might also be slightly worse.
A better solution is to recognize the rotational play and develop a procedural strategy to counter the play when it is important to do so. As long as the lens is performing satisfactorily in other regards, this is not a deal breaker IMO.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I have noticed on my Canon lenses that the larger, longer, heavier lenses have more play than the lighter and shorter lenses. I suspect (and this is just conjecture) that longer and heavier lenses are more prone to mechanical mount "binding" from the hung weight of the lens. If you are in a sports situation (or similar) you are often in a hurry to change lenses and binding is the last thing you want to happen.
Since many of the longer and heavier lenses are used in sports applications I have to wonder if the manufacturers take that use as a primary concern and make engineering decisions and adjustments accordingly.
A different latching mechanism could be developed, and the mechanical engineer in me would suggest a "wedge" design which could limit rotational and even longitudinal play, but that would involve changing the mount itself. Most of the current lens mounts were developed very long ago and current applications, like multiple exposures for the purpose of HDR etc., were not a consideration.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The engineer in me also thinks that a more solid mount could be designed, perhaps an extra lock on the lens itself so the mount wouldn't need any updates, but as you say, if that encourages binding, that's not a good solution. So I guess it's no worries, and normal operation.
My site 365 Project
I just checked my VR2 and it rotates...
I'd estimate appx 1/3rd of 1 degree.
300f/4...1/2 of 1 degree
35-70 f/2.8 1/2-3/4 of one degree.
all very negligible as far as I can tell.
I'm now curious about my guesstimate of 1-2 degrees, so the next time I get together with my friend I'm going to make some closer observations and get a better guess on how much it rotates. I have to think it's more than 1/3 of 1 degree, because I'm just not sure I'd notice a rotation that small.
My site 365 Project
Oh....I think you'd notice it! And I'd go so far as to say you could even make it make a sound clunking back-n-forth! But, yes check your friends and report back. It wouldn't be too hard for me to make a measurement apparatus that I could use a digital micrometer on...and if so, I'd say my guess was pretty darned close...at least on my lenses. Still, I was surprised it was there.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
In fact, on the D7000 there is enough play in the rotation that when I first attach the lens, rotating too far in one direction causes the cpu contacts to come out of contact and the body doesn't recognize the lens. Funny thing is that after a few minutes of use, the rotation doesn't matter and the cpu contacts don't lose connection.
Stranage.