Top critical review
146 people found this helpful
Serious flaw in materials used for mount
on February 10, 2010
Of the dozen or so Nikon lenses I've owned, this is the first I've been unhappy with. Features vs. price isn't a problem, but quality of materials has turned out to be a huge issue. To save money or weight (or both) Nikon has used thin, cheap plastic instead of metal for the bayonet mount. I didn't notice just how thin and fragile this plastic was until shooting in 28 degree weather last month, when the lens literally fell off the camera body as I was zoomed in on a subject.
Inside the body I found a tiny shard of black plastic that turned out to be all that ever held the lens on the body. Comparing the shard to the remainder that had NOT broken off the lens, I was shocked to see just how thin this very important of plastic had been on the day the lens left the factory -- what I mean is, I wasn't looking at a mount worn thin by repeated use: this was original material and workmanship with no signs of abuse or wear in the 10 months since I'd purchased it new.
The lens is on its way to Nikon repair now but the only thing I fear more than them NOT fixing it for free is that they'll replace it with another poorly-made lens that's going to fall apart on me in the middle of an important shoot. I don't "baby" my equipment but I do take care of it and I expect it to last for years as a result. This used to be what Nikon stood for and I'm still using Nikon lenses purchased over 20 year ago. Corners were obviously cut to produce this lens cheaply and in looking at how it's made, I'm not surprised it fell off the camera body and into a snow bank during normal use. This lens does NOT represent a commitment to quality. Unless you plan on never removing it from the camera body, I would look elsewhere...