New Nikon Nikkor lens is made cheaper than Pentax/Zeiss/Sigma/Samyang/Rokinon lenses!

Fenwoodian · 05-02-2017, 10:48 PM - **1 Like**

.
As many of you know, I love to tinker with lenses. Over the last few years I've taken a wide variety of lenses apart.

Tonight I was adapting a $1349 Nikkor lens to fit on my K1 camera.

When sanding down the aperture ring I noticed that it was made of flimsy plastic!

I had to be extra careful when handling it so not to accidentally break it.

I believe that most (if not all) of the aperture rings I've seen in the past on Zeiss, Pentax, Sigma, Samyang, and Rokinon lenses were all made of metal.

Not only that, but this lenses' auto-focus motor had broken last September, a common failure with this particular lens.

If other expensive modern Nikon Nikkor lenses are made like this, well, I'm sure glad that I switched over to Pentax a couple of years ago and sold most of my Nikkor lenses.

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 05-02-2017 at 10:59 PM.

**clackers** · 05-02-2017, 11:22 PM - **1 Like**

I was talking to a camera repair shop owner while he was looking at my DA*50-135, and he agreed that the first ever SDM motor arrangements were often not up to driving the big glass in it and the 16-50. He'd had to fix a few. He also said they weren't the only ones that had to be replaced more than they should. He said one word ... "Nikon".

bm75 · 05-02-2017, 11:25 PM

Your lens seems to be Af-D lens, given the fact that it has an aperture ring. Notice that those lenses are proved to be made much better then newest models AF-S which are plasticky, mount apart. Otherwise no reports of AFS failures. This is a continous argument of discussion in Nikonland. My experience with AfS lenses is good , BTW. Gold-ring ones are assumed to be made of higher quality but there's no proof of real WR, while Canon L series are all WR.

Giklab · 05-02-2017, 11:26 PM - **4 Likes**

5/7 clickbait title there...

Not a Number · 05-02-2017, 11:39 PM - **1 Like**

The aperture rings on my Minolta lenses from the early 80s are plastic as are the rings on my Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4. The aperture ring on my Kiron (Kino) 80-200mm f/4 for Minolta mount is plastic. The aperture linkage tab broke off during a photo shoot in the field once and I had to resort to the "sunny 16 rule" for my exposures. Kino was known for making very sturdy lenses at the time,

There was discussion a few years ago on one Yahoo group on how often the plastic mount on Nikon kit lenses break soon after the warranty expires on them. This makes me leery of the plastic mounts on Pentax kit lenses but other than being dropped there seems to be very few posts here on failures of the kit lens mounts.

Fenwoodian · 05-02-2017, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Giklab

5/7 clickbait title there...

I disagree. It's an appropriate title. Maybe it's your English?

starbase218 · 05-03-2017, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Giklab

5/7 clickbait title there...

Yup, and it's incorrect too. It's not a new lens. The E PF version is.

Also, in terms of build quality, my Nikon 16-85 has inner lens barrels made out of metal. My Pentax 17-70 is all plastic. I would take the Nikon's build quality over the Pentax's any day when it comes to these two lenses.

Having said that, from what I've seen on lensrentals, Canon L lenses are better still in terms of build quality.

jddwoods · 05-03-2017, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by starbase218

Yup, and it's incorrect too. It's not a new lens. The E PF version is.

Also, in terms of build quality, my Nikon 16-85 has inner lens barrels made out of metal. My Pentax 17-70 is all plastic. I would take the Nikon's build quality over the Pentax's any day when it comes to these two lenses.

Having said that, from what I've seen on lensrentals, Canon L lenses are better still in terms of build quality.

What is the cost of the Nikon 16-85? The Pentax 17-70 (I know, I have one) is not a particularly expensive lens. Actually it is a consumer, not pro, or even advanced amateur lens like the Pentax 16-85. This may not be an apples to apples comparison.

starbase218 · 05-03-2017, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by jddwoods

What is the cost of the Nikon 16-85? The Pentax 17-70 (I know, I have one) is not a particularly expensive lens. Actually it is a consumer, not pro, or even advanced amateur lens like the Pentax 16-85. This may not be an apples to apples comparison.

I bought the Pentax new for around 500 euros. It's still available for that price, as is the Nikon.

Edit: I did a quick search and somehow the Nikon turned up for slightly under 500 euros. But the only shop where it had that price is cheaper with a lot of things, so not really indicative and maybe there's some grey import things going on there. It is 700 euros in other shops, so it is somewhat more expensive after all.

I bought it used though, together with a D7100 and 35/1.8 for 900 euros. So I do tend to think it's pretty good value at least on the used market.

Also, a fixed f/4 lens in my mind is already more "pro" than an f/3.5-5.6 lens. So I don't know how you got the notion that the Pentax (or Nikon) 16-85 is more pro/advanced amateur (whatever that means) than the 17-70.

starbase218 · 05-03-2017, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by dcshooter

Form what I've seen opening lenses up, the build quality among the OEMs is all pretty similar and tends to get better as price goes up. Of the remaining SLR makers, I'd say that the typical build quality of Canon lenses is the worst of the bunch. The very expensive L lenses are of course quite a bit better, but the non-L lenses tend to be very bad.

Interesting. I read they were quite impressed with the 70-300 non-L lens: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/opening-up-the-new-canon-70-300mm-f4-5-6-is-ii/

Originally posted by dcshooter

Looking at the big third party suppliers, another step down is Sigma, whose build quality is well below any of the OEMs (no surprise - they put all the money into the optics and skimp on mechanicals/build/licensing to keep costs down). Tamron and Tokina both are much better than Sigma. Samyang/Laowa/Mitakon, etc. can't really be compared directly to the AF brands, since it's a very different engineering proposition making an MF lens than it is a modern AF one.

I've heard Sigma is not so good on build quality before, even using belts for the AF drive. I'm curious if they improved things with the Art series of lenses though.

Originally posted by dcshooter

Also, incidentally, the 17-70mm is clad in plastic, but the inner helical barrels are indeed all aluminum.

What I do know is 1) the ring on the front of my lens started to come of a few years ago (I sent it in for repair), 2) when I twist the lens in my hand, I can feel and hear the inner parts shaking around quite a bit, and 3) it has zoom creep.

I'd love for Pentax to create a DA* 17-70/4 with DC motor, HD coatings, improved optics and excellent build quality. They can ask 800 euros for it. But I don't think they're going to do it because right now they have their hands full completing the fullframe lens line-up.

starbase218 · 05-03-2017, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Not a Number

The aperture rings on my Minolta lenses from the early 80s are plastic as are the rings on my Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4. The aperture ring on my Kiron (Kino) 80-200mm f/4 for Minolta mount is plastic. The aperture linkage tab broke off during a photo shoot in the field once and I had to resort to the "sunny 16 rule" for my exposures. Kino was known for making very sturdy lenses at the time,

There was discussion a few years ago on one Yahoo group on how often the plastic mount on Nikon kit lenses break soon after the warranty expires on them. This makes me leery of the plastic mounts on Pentax kit lenses but other than being dropped there seems to be very few posts here on failures of the kit lens mounts.

I don't mind plastic mounts so much because I've opened up some of my lenses and, for example, in the DA* series the mount screws thread into plastic on the other end anyway. Actually I've seen photos of a DA* 50-135 with that plastic rupturing around one screw and cracking around the others. Besides, the plastic mounts are usually applied to cheaper and lighter lenses anyway.

Giklab · 05-03-2017, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

I disagree. It's an appropriate title. Maybe it's your English?

See Starbase's comment below yours.
Also, there are plenty Sigma/Samyang (Rokinon is Samyang btw) and probably Canon lenses with worse build quality.

starbase218 · 05-03-2017, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by dcshooter

#1 and 2 both sound simply like screws have become loosened from use. 2) might also implicate worn helical bushings as well.

Zoom creep is a design compromise. Basically, when designing an extending barrel, you can only pick at most two of the three following characteristics: 1) It can be heavily built, 2) it can move smoothly (i.e. with little friction/damping) 3) It can lack zoom creep. That's just the way gravity works.

With #1 I meant the plastic ring that is glued from the front, and denotes the lens name (e.g. "SMC Pentax-DA 17-70mm 1:4 AL [IF] SDM"). So it's probably purely cosmetic. But anyway it came loose and I think it was under warranty. So I sent it in anyway.

Wrt #2 and the possibility of screws coming loose over time, do you think this is something I can fix? For reference, I have opened up lenses before and at one point I actually exchanged the optics modules of 2 16-50 lenses.

Btw I don't think the first sample of the 17-70 I had suffered from zoom creep. Yup, I've had two. Long story.

(sorry if this is too far off-topic)

**monochrome** · 05-03-2017, 08:46 AM

Modular Design is a manufacturing process engineering* decision. What happens after a Modular Design product leaves the plant is a consumer (and warranty) issue; marketing and finance issues, or - from the standpoint of the manufacturing process engineer - "That's not my Department."

* See Roger Cicala on Sony mirrorless.

Ontarian50 · 05-03-2017, 09:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bm75

Your lens seems to be Af-D lens, given the fact that it has an aperture ring. Notice that those lenses are proved to be made much better then newest models AF-S which are plasticky, mount apart. Otherwise no reports of AFS failures. This is a continous argument of discussion in Nikonland. My experience with AfS lenses is good , BTW. Gold-ring ones are assumed to be made of higher quality but there's no proof of real WR, while Canon L series are all WR.

Hmmn. One of the local pros got into quite a fight with Canon after his 70-200 2.8 L got splashed with seawater while doing model shoot on the shoreline. The lens seized up and died. Canon told him he shouldn't have got it wet. He argued they claimed water resistance. They denied that. He argued back, and pointed how much he spent on their equipment over the years. They relented and replaced the lens.

However, having had the Canon L lenses apart, they definitely do not have the gasketing and sealing you see on Pentax WR lenses. They are made more dust proof than amateur grade lenses, but WR, they aren't. Any claims to WR are simply the marketing department getting ahead of themselves.

05-03-2017, 03:59 AM	#9
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by jddwoods What is the cost of the Nikon 16-85? The Pentax 17-70 (I know, I have one) is not a particularly expensive lens. Actually it is a consumer, not pro, or even advanced amateur lens like the Pentax 16-85. This may not be an apples to apples comparison. I bought the Pentax new for around 500 euros. It's still available for that price, as is the Nikon. Edit: I did a quick search and somehow the Nikon turned up for slightly under 500 euros. But the only shop where it had that price is cheaper with a lot of things, so not really indicative and maybe there's some grey import things going on there. It is 700 euros in other shops, so it is somewhat more expensive after all. I bought it used though, together with a D7100 and 35/1.8 for 900 euros. So I do tend to think it's pretty good value at least on the used market. Also, a fixed f/4 lens in my mind is already more "pro" than an f/3.5-5.6 lens. So I don't know how you got the notion that the Pentax (or Nikon) 16-85 is more pro/advanced amateur (whatever that means) than the 17-70. Last edited by starbase218; 05-03-2017 at 04:12 AM.

05-03-2017, 04:34 AM	#10
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by dcshooter Form what I've seen opening lenses up, the build quality among the OEMs is all pretty similar and tends to get better as price goes up. Of the remaining SLR makers, I'd say that the typical build quality of Canon lenses is the worst of the bunch. The very expensive L lenses are of course quite a bit better, but the non-L lenses tend to be very bad. Interesting. I read they were quite impressed with the 70-300 non-L lens: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/opening-up-the-new-canon-70-300mm-f4-5-6-is-ii/ Originally posted by dcshooter Looking at the big third party suppliers, another step down is Sigma, whose build quality is well below any of the OEMs (no surprise - they put all the money into the optics and skimp on mechanicals/build/licensing to keep costs down). Tamron and Tokina both are much better than Sigma. Samyang/Laowa/Mitakon, etc. can't really be compared directly to the AF brands, since it's a very different engineering proposition making an MF lens than it is a modern AF one. I've heard Sigma is not so good on build quality before, even using belts for the AF drive. I'm curious if they improved things with the Art series of lenses though. Originally posted by dcshooter Also, incidentally, the 17-70mm is clad in plastic, but the inner helical barrels are indeed all aluminum. What I do know is 1) the ring on the front of my lens started to come of a few years ago (I sent it in for repair), 2) when I twist the lens in my hand, I can feel and hear the inner parts shaking around quite a bit, and 3) it has zoom creep. I'd love for Pentax to create a DA* 17-70/4 with DC motor, HD coatings, improved optics and excellent build quality. They can ask 800 euros for it. But I don't think they're going to do it because right now they have their hands full completing the fullframe lens line-up. Last edited by starbase218; 05-03-2017 at 05:17 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 3 ZK Lenses: Zeiss 35 mm F2, Zeiss 50 mm F2 Makro, and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 Planar	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	10	08-31-2016 08:11 PM
Nikkor 500/4 and Nikkor 300/2.8 sucessfully converted to Pentax K using Leitax mount	beholder3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-03-2016 07:05 AM
I am Adrenaline - Nikon D7100 cheaper than K5IIs	Viennese	Photographic Industry and Professionals	8	03-30-2013 12:09 PM
Why is the Sigma 17-70 cheaper than Sigma 18-125?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	06-18-2010 05:05 AM

05-02-2017, 10:48 PM - 1 Like	#1
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	New Nikon Nikkor lens is made cheaper than Pentax/Zeiss/Sigma/Samyang/Rokinon lenses! . As many of you know, I love to tinker with lenses. Over the last few years I've taken a wide variety of lenses apart. Tonight I was adapting a $1349 Nikkor lens to fit on my K1 camera. When sanding down the aperture ring I noticed that it was made of flimsy plastic! I had to be extra careful when handling it so not to accidentally break it. I believe that most (if not all) of the aperture rings I've seen in the past on Zeiss, Pentax, Sigma, Samyang, and Rokinon lenses were all made of metal. Not only that, but this lenses' auto-focus motor had broken last September, a common failure with this particular lens. If other expensive modern Nikon Nikkor lenses are made like this, well, I'm sure glad that I switched over to Pentax a couple of years ago and sold most of my Nikkor lenses. Last edited by Fenwoodian; 05-02-2017 at 10:59 PM.

05-02-2017, 11:22 PM - 1 Like	#2
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	I was talking to a camera repair shop owner while he was looking at my DA*50-135, and he agreed that the first ever SDM motor arrangements were often not up to driving the big glass in it and the 16-50. He'd had to fix a few. He also said they weren't the only ones that had to be replaced more than they should. He said one word ... "Nikon".

05-02-2017, 11:25 PM	#3
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Your lens seems to be Af-D lens, given the fact that it has an aperture ring. Notice that those lenses are proved to be made much better then newest models AF-S which are plasticky, mount apart. Otherwise no reports of AFS failures. This is a continous argument of discussion in Nikonland. My experience with AfS lenses is good , BTW. Gold-ring ones are assumed to be made of higher quality but there's no proof of real WR, while Canon L series are all WR.

05-02-2017, 11:26 PM - 4 Likes	#4
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	5/7 clickbait title there...

05-02-2017, 11:39 PM - 1 Like	#5
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	The aperture rings on my Minolta lenses from the early 80s are plastic as are the rings on my Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4. The aperture ring on my Kiron (Kino) 80-200mm f/4 for Minolta mount is plastic. The aperture linkage tab broke off during a photo shoot in the field once and I had to resort to the "sunny 16 rule" for my exposures. Kino was known for making very sturdy lenses at the time, There was discussion a few years ago on one Yahoo group on how often the plastic mount on Nikon kit lenses break soon after the warranty expires on them. This makes me leery of the plastic mounts on Pentax kit lenses but other than being dropped there seems to be very few posts here on failures of the kit lens mounts.

05-02-2017, 11:46 PM	#6
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874 Original Poster	Originally posted by Giklab 5/7 clickbait title there... I disagree. It's an appropriate title. Maybe it's your English?

05-03-2017, 03:15 AM	#7
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by Giklab 5/7 clickbait title there... Yup, and it's incorrect too. It's not a new lens. The E PF version is. Also, in terms of build quality, my Nikon 16-85 has inner lens barrels made out of metal. My Pentax 17-70 is all plastic. I would take the Nikon's build quality over the Pentax's any day when it comes to these two lenses. Having said that, from what I've seen on lensrentals, Canon L lenses are better still in terms of build quality.

05-03-2017, 03:47 AM	#8
jddwoods Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Newark, Delaware Posts: 1,035	Originally posted by starbase218 Yup, and it's incorrect too. It's not a new lens. The E PF version is. Also, in terms of build quality, my Nikon 16-85 has inner lens barrels made out of metal. My Pentax 17-70 is all plastic. I would take the Nikon's build quality over the Pentax's any day when it comes to these two lenses. Having said that, from what I've seen on lensrentals, Canon L lenses are better still in terms of build quality. What is the cost of the Nikon 16-85? The Pentax 17-70 (I know, I have one) is not a particularly expensive lens. Actually it is a consumer, not pro, or even advanced amateur lens like the Pentax 16-85. This may not be an apples to apples comparison.

05-03-2017, 06:50 AM	#11
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by Not a Number The aperture rings on my Minolta lenses from the early 80s are plastic as are the rings on my Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4. The aperture ring on my Kiron (Kino) 80-200mm f/4 for Minolta mount is plastic. The aperture linkage tab broke off during a photo shoot in the field once and I had to resort to the "sunny 16 rule" for my exposures. Kino was known for making very sturdy lenses at the time, There was discussion a few years ago on one Yahoo group on how often the plastic mount on Nikon kit lenses break soon after the warranty expires on them. This makes me leery of the plastic mounts on Pentax kit lenses but other than being dropped there seems to be very few posts here on failures of the kit lens mounts. I don't mind plastic mounts so much because I've opened up some of my lenses and, for example, in the DA* series the mount screws thread into plastic on the other end anyway. Actually I've seen photos of a DA* 50-135 with that plastic rupturing around one screw and cracking around the others. Besides, the plastic mounts are usually applied to cheaper and lighter lenses anyway.

05-03-2017, 06:52 AM	#12
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	Originally posted by Fenwoodian I disagree. It's an appropriate title. Maybe it's your English? See Starbase's comment below yours. Also, there are plenty Sigma/Samyang (Rokinon is Samyang btw) and probably Canon lenses with worse build quality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2017, 08:42 AM	#13
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by dcshooter #1 and 2 both sound simply like screws have become loosened from use. 2) might also implicate worn helical bushings as well. Zoom creep is a design compromise. Basically, when designing an extending barrel, you can only pick at most two of the three following characteristics: 1) It can be heavily built, 2) it can move smoothly (i.e. with little friction/damping) 3) It can lack zoom creep. That's just the way gravity works. With #1 I meant the plastic ring that is glued from the front, and denotes the lens name (e.g. "SMC Pentax-DA 17-70mm 1:4 AL [IF] SDM"). So it's probably purely cosmetic. But anyway it came loose and I think it was under warranty. So I sent it in anyway. Wrt #2 and the possibility of screws coming loose over time, do you think this is something I can fix? For reference, I have opened up lenses before and at one point I actually exchanged the optics modules of 2 16-50 lenses. Btw I don't think the first sample of the 17-70 I had suffered from zoom creep. Yup, I've had two. Long story. (sorry if this is too far off-topic)

05-03-2017, 08:46 AM	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Modular Design is a manufacturing process engineering* decision. What happens after a Modular Design product leaves the plant is a consumer (and warranty) issue; marketing and finance issues, or - from the standpoint of the manufacturing process engineer - "That's not my Department." * See Roger Cicala on Sony mirrorless.

05-03-2017, 09:02 AM - 1 Like	#15
Ontarian50 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 530	Originally posted by bm75 Your lens seems to be Af-D lens, given the fact that it has an aperture ring. Notice that those lenses are proved to be made much better then newest models AF-S which are plasticky, mount apart. Otherwise no reports of AFS failures. This is a continous argument of discussion in Nikonland. My experience with AfS lenses is good , BTW. Gold-ring ones are assumed to be made of higher quality but there's no proof of real WR, while Canon L series are all WR. Hmmn. One of the local pros got into quite a fight with Canon after his 70-200 2.8 L got splashed with seawater while doing model shoot on the shoreline. The lens seized up and died. Canon told him he shouldn't have got it wet. He argued they claimed water resistance. They denied that. He argued back, and pointed how much he spent on their equipment over the years. They relented and replaced the lens. However, having had the Canon L lenses apart, they definitely do not have the gasketing and sealing you see on Pentax WR lenses. They are made more dust proof than amateur grade lenses, but WR, they aren't. Any claims to WR are simply the marketing department getting ahead of themselves.