mcg
journeyman
Reged: 09/10/2005
Posts: 72
Loc: Scotland
|
|
I have a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR - my priciest piece of glass - and although about 4 years old, it has not often been used.
It's recently developed a problem, which I have been told is likely due to the iris not stopping down: it's fine at 2.8, but with smaller apertures I get increasingly grossly overexposed images.
Is this a problem that many here have encountered? Is it a problem that tends to afflict some lenses rather than others? I'm bummed in that I've never had a problem with any consumer Nikkor I've owned, just now with this pro-spec lens.
Also, for those who have had a similar iris problem, what sort of repair bill did you get? (I've wondering if it might have to wait till after the car's MOT!)
Thanks in advance for replies....
|
sillyconguru
addict
Reged: 05/11/2005
Posts: 482
|
|
Quote:
I've wondering if it might have to wait till after the car's MOT!
[rant]
Off topic, but hey.
Your statement makes it seem that you expect your car to fail its MOT test. If this is the case then you could well be driving around in an unroadworthy car. This sort of thing really gets my goat. I see so many vehicles that come in for MOT test and they have so many faults, and obviously have had for months, that they shouldn't be on the road.
It seems that many people think that a MOT certificate automatically means that the car is roadworthy, it only means that the car was roadworthy at the time of testing. If you think there is a problem with your car then get it looked at ASAP, don't wait until the MOT runs out. Better still; have it serviced (and I mean a full service, not just an oil change), 'service standard' is much higher that the 'MOT standard'.
Remember; you can quite easily become banned from driving if you are caught driving a car with too many certain faults (i.e. tyre treads below 1.6mm, faulty brakes, etc.), and/or the Police or VOSA can place a prohibition notice on the vehicle (it cannot be used/towed on the public highway until the faults are rectified).
[/rant]
Thanks for your understanding. 
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 5058
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
I have a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR - my priciest piece of glass - and although about 4 years old, it has not often been used.
It's recently developed a problem, which I have been told is likely due to the iris not stopping down: it's fine at 2.8, but with smaller apertures I get increasingly grossly overexposed images.
Is this a problem that many here have encountered? Is it a problem that tends to afflict some lenses rather than others? I'm bummed in that I've never had a problem with any consumer Nikkor I've owned, just now with this pro-spec lens.
Thanks in advance for replies....
You could test the iris by simply flipping the lever on the right (viewed from the back) of the lens mount. If that works you may just have a bent lever that isn't making contact with the control lever in the camera.
Come to think of it Nikon lenses stop down when removed from the camera. If yours isn't the lever could be jammed.
|
alanworland
journeyman
Reged: 13/07/2006
Posts: 83
Loc: Essex
|
|
I had a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 Mk1 lens serviced for a sluggish iris - cost £47 with a 6 month warranty
|
JJM74
enthusiast
Reged: 13/06/2008
Posts: 279
Loc: Eastern UK
|
|
I can't comment on the lens in question, but a while back one of my lenses that hadn't been used recently had a stuck iris. I resorted to just repeatedly working the lever in the mount, and after a short time it freed itself. May be worth a try.
|
IvorETower
Little Buttercup
Reged: 15/11/2006
Posts: 2306
Loc: Camberley, Surrey
|
|
MOT's.... [rant mode on]
A few years back my car was faield for having a sticker (for the RNLI) next to the tax disc within the swept area of the wipers. Reversing the position of sticker and tax disc meant that it passed. The sticker is smaller than the tax disc. How is it that in one configuration, the car was unsafe to drive, but just reversing them and putting the larger one further in my field of view, everything was OK. For the previous few years, the car has passed its MOT at the same station with the same stickers on the windscreen.
Reason given for failure was "The tester's probably recently been on a refresher course".
[rant mode off]
--------------------
Too many cameras, too many lenses.......
|
Manofolympus
addict
Reged: 01/04/2009
Posts: 696
Loc: Stafford
|
|
Quote:
MOT's.... [rant mode on]
A few years back my car was faield for having a sticker (for the RNLI) next to the tax disc within the swept area of the wipers. Reversing the position of sticker and tax disc meant that it passed. The sticker is smaller than the tax disc. How is it that in one configuration, the car was unsafe to drive, but just reversing them and putting the larger one further in my field of view, everything was OK. For the previous few years, the car has passed its MOT at the same station with the same stickers on the windscreen.
Reason given for failure was "The tester's probably recently been on a refresher course".
[rant mode off]
A common failing with MOT testers appears to be over-enthusiasm-a friend with an ancient Mark 1 Land Rover had it failed for lack of a working reversing light. He had to formally complain to get a free retest after pointing out that "it's never had a reversing light-they didn't exist when it was built!"
--------------------
Nigel
www.flickr.com/people/nigelkell/
"Stuck in the seventies"
|
mcg
journeyman
Reged: 09/10/2005
Posts: 72
Loc: Scotland
|
|
Thanks for the tip about the lever!
When I looked at it, the lever was stuck in the max aperture position, so maybe I accidentally got it stuck there putting the lens on wrongly? Who knows!
I moved it back and forth for a bit, and it seems ok (for the moment!), automatically going back to the min aperture setting.
[Re the MOT, thanks for the concern, but I do not ever knowingly drive around in a dangerous car or knowing there's some fault in it. Maybe I'll have to choose my words here carefully in future lest some throw away comment give cause for someone vent thir spleen about their pet peeves!]
|
frank1
Handsome Old Bugger
Reged: 14/06/2005
Posts: 980
Loc: the big smoke islington
|
|
[Re the MOT, thanks for the concern, but I do not ever knowingly drive around in a dangerous car or knowing there's some fault in it. Maybe I'll have to choose my words here carefully in future lest some throw away comment give cause for someone vent thir spleen about their pet peeves!]
Happens around here alot the venting of the spleen, you'll never see me doing it.
Glad your lens seems to be working
|
sillyconguru
addict
Reged: 05/11/2005
Posts: 482
|
|
Quote:
A few years back my car was faield for having a sticker (for the RNLI) next to the tax disc within the swept area of the wipers. Reversing the position of sticker and tax disc meant that it passed...Reason given for failure was "The tester's probably recently been on a refresher course".
Yup, some (generally minor) items can go for years without being picked up.
Quote:
A common failing with MOT testers appears to be over-enthusiasm-a friend with an ancient Mark 1 Land Rover had it failed for lack of a working reversing light. He had to formally complain to get a free retest after pointing out that "it's never had a reversing light-they didn't exist when it was built!"
Hmm.. Reversing lamps are not MOT testable items (unless they are broken and deemed to have sharp edges), whether fitted or not.
The computerisation of MOTs should have all-but stopped wrongly failed cars, if there is no reason for rejection stated on the VTS device (computer) for a particular item then it cannot fail.
Quote:
Re the MOT, thanks for the concern, but I do not ever knowingly drive around in a dangerous car or knowing there's some fault in it. Maybe I'll have to choose my words here carefully in future lest some throw away comment give cause for someone vent thir spleen about their pet peeves!
He-he, sorry for that. That's what happens after seeing a 1999 Fiat Punto come in for handbrake repair 2 months, and 600 miles (I compared with the last repair bill when the car came in for front discs & pads, one pad was missing entirely), after the owner was told that the repair was desperate (it basically didn't work at all), and spending half the day fixing a 1980 MKII Ford Escort Harrier so it was, once again, fit for the road.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
