Crappy construction Nikon 18-135

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

They think it might be a production mistake.

It's no production mistake; it's just the same as any adhesive backed
aluminum label or nameplate. It will wear quickly or get damaged if
not handled properly. Just have the vendor or Nikon service send
you one so you
won't be without your lens.

But that's the problem: it's not "adhesived" anywhere, just the outer
ring seems to be holding on to the edge.
You can lift it anywhere on the inside.
Good idea, but how is it attached? It seems to be "locked" with the
same thread for a filter. So you have to screw it out and the new one
in? Or is it glued?

I just looked at my 105mm VR and it has the same setup. I assumed that it
was held in place by adhesive. If yours is different and is locked down
by
a threaded ring you will need to use a spanner wrench. You can make one
from a set of calipers if you don't. I would see if the store would sell
the part directly to you. I don't see this part costing more than $5. I
ordered for my D200 two complete sets of rubber grips and a few other
parts
directly from Nikon an the order wasn't even $50.

Holy makrel Rita! Are you a mechanic or something? I don't even know what a
"spanner wrench" looks like. My tech English is not so good.
I tried but these people in Holland or Portugal refuse to sell me the ring!
They only want to look at it and maybe replace it without cost or I may have
to pay for it, because , as the Dutch said: it was cosmetic and therefore
not covered by warranty...
Yesterday I went to see the tech store of Nikon in Sintra, but I never got
there.

This is my short story:
http://atlantic-diesel.com/Badluck/

If not anything else, I'll have a ring made for it, somewhere. I'm sure the
quality will be better than original.
But I'm in no hurry. Don't know about what you and others think, but I think
the lens does it's job quite well.
Some people on the Dutch newsgroup were mocking me for using a 18-135 on the
D300.
I hardly think any $ 5,000.- lens would do a *much* better job, what do you
think?

First the lens, then the car: if I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't have any
luck at all ;-)


--
Sosumi

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

Holy makrel Rita! Are you a mechanic or something? I don't even know
what a "spanner wrench" looks like. My tech English is not so good.

No, just play one on Usenet. I just buy/sell a lot of diverse merchandise
so you have to learn very quickly what things are and how to fix them
should
they need fixing.

I tried but these people in Holland or Portugal refuse to sell me the
ring! They only want to look at it and maybe replace it without cost
or I may have to pay for it, because , as the Dutch said: it was
cosmetic and therefore not covered by warranty...
Yesterday I went to see the tech store of Nikon in Sintra, but I
never got there.

Odd, Nikon USA will sell you any part you need.

Adn at a lot better price too, believe me...

If not anything else, I'll have a ring made for it, somewhere. I'm
sure the quality will be better than original.

I would just bend it back as close to where it needs to be as possible and
with a toothpick dab a little bit of flat black paint on the shiny
scratched
areas. Let dry and slap a filter on it and never worry about it again.

That's exactly what I planned today ;-)

But I'm in no hurry. Don't know about what you and others think, but
I think the lens does it's job quite well.
Some people on the Dutch newsgroup were mocking me for using a 18-135
on the D300.
I hardly think any $ 5,000.- lens would do a *much* better job, what
do you think?

I never used the lens so I can't honestly answer that. The bottom line is
if you are happy with the lens, that's all that matters.

I'm very happy ;-)

First the lens, then the car: if I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't
have any luck at all ;-)

It passes. You got to have a couple bad days to realize how great you
have
it.

No matter what anybody else might say about you; you´re a very special,
intelligent lady and you sure brightened my day. Thank you and bless you...


--
Sosumi

"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide. He
only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who takes
the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the world's
pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see the sea of
white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner doing his best
to remain unobtrusive.

That must be the best commercial *not* to buy Canon. LOL
For newspaper photo's you don't need quality, just speed.

If everyone buys a VW, I must be wrong for driving a Mercedes?
What is this: dumb and dumber?


--
Sosumi

I find the postings to this newsgroup some what interesting.

30 years ago I was a big SLR Nikon fan. But the price of Nikons started to
get up there and in 1995 I switched to Canon SLR and was a big Canon fan.
This year I just switched back to Nikon because I feel that the quality of
Nikon products is pretty good and the quality of Canon products has dropped.
Canon does not have the same reliability as they used to have, a shorter
warranty and Nikon offers more bang for the buck. Nikon lens come with a 5
year Canadian warranty and the Nikon Cameras come with a 2 year warranty.
Canons one year If my lens exhibited the same problem I would ship it back
to Nikon for repair.


"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide. He
only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who takes
the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the world's
pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see the sea of
white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner doing his best
to remain unobtrusive.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sosumi wrote:
"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide. He
only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who takes
the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the world's
pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see the sea of
white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner doing his best
to remain unobtrusive.

That must be the best commercial *not* to buy Canon. LOL
For newspaper photo's you don't need quality, just speed.

If everyone buys a VW, I must be wrong for driving a Mercedes?
What is this: dumb and dumber?


No. But. you don't get VW owners claiming they are
faster/sharper/better built than Merc, though, do you?

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Sosumi wrote:
"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide.
He only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who takes
the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the world's
pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see the sea of
white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner doing his best
to remain unobtrusive.

That must be the best commercial *not* to buy Canon. LOL
For newspaper photo's you don't need quality, just speed.

If everyone buys a VW, I must be wrong for driving a Mercedes?
What is this: dumb and dumber?


No. But. you don't get VW owners claiming they are faster/sharper/better
built than Merc, though, do you?

So why do Canon shooters do that?


--
Sosumi

"Sosumi" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Sosumi wrote:
"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide.
He only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who
takes the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the
world's pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see
the sea of white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner
doing his best to remain unobtrusive.

That must be the best commercial *not* to buy Canon. LOL
For newspaper photo's you don't need quality, just speed.

If everyone buys a VW, I must be wrong for driving a Mercedes?
What is this: dumb and dumber?


No. But. you don't get VW owners claiming they are faster/sharper/better
built than Merc, though, do you?

So why do Canon shooters do that?

There are a few idiots who claim Nikons are vastly superior to Canons,
aren't you one of them? If you find what you have to be good, just use it
and share your TECHNIQUES, not YOUR BIAS. Saying Canon (or others) is crap
is just childish ranting. There isn't a single car in the world that has
not been in a garage to fix something, even Rolls need repairs, when you get
on a plane, do you check it's service record? They ALL get service, they
ALL get parts recalls, there are more important things in life than ****ing
on your neighbor.

I have quit reading any posts by Rita and RichA because it's ALWAYS the same
song, get a life before you become like them.

Jean

"jean" wrote in message
...

"Sosumi" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Sosumi wrote:
"Colin_D" wrote in message
.. .
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Hey, watch out! If you see someone ID'ed as RichA, run and hide.
He only allows anti-Canon comments.

Why should I run and hide? RichA is a hopelessly biased troll who
takes the mickey out of Canon owners. Me, I'm a Canonite. 70% of the
world's pro photogs can't be wrong. Go to any sports fixture and see
the sea of white lenses, with just the odd black one - and the owner
doing his best to remain unobtrusive.

That must be the best commercial *not* to buy Canon. LOL
For newspaper photo's you don't need quality, just speed.

If everyone buys a VW, I must be wrong for driving a Mercedes?
What is this: dumb and dumber?


No. But. you don't get VW owners claiming they are
faster/sharper/better built than Merc, though, do you?

So why do Canon shooters do that?

There are a few idiots who claim Nikons are vastly superior to Canons,
aren't you one of them?

More certified companies like J.D.Powers conclude that Nikon DSLR owners are
more satisfied than Canon DSLR owners.
C|NET comments:
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9768037-39.html

And that was before the D3 and D300 were on the market.
Canon does score better with P&S camera's, so the conclusion:
Canon should stick to what they do best: P&S and leave the DSLR's to Nikon.
Nikon should stop wasting time and money on P&S and leave that to Canon.

If you find what you have to be good, just use it and share your
TECHNIQUES, not YOUR BIAS. Saying Canon (or others) is crap is just
childish ranting.

I do share my pictures and techniques, but somehow always end up with a big
discussion from people that "know" everything but show nothing.~
Last time was with MX pictures how they looked much better than without.
Cutting noise by more than just a litle even at 200 ISO. But that wasn't
sharper, it wasn't higher resolution, etc. I don't care how you wan to call
is: I just see a better picture.

You also joined a discussion with a guy who's Canon lens was less sharp than
a year before.
Personally I had a Canon fax/printer/scanner that just died after less than
2 years and little use. They claimed the motherboard died. How the heck does
that happen? No warranty and the cost for repair was higher than a new one.
Needless to say I bought a new HP instead with more extra's and at half the
price.
But I also have a Canon powershot and a Canon camcorder with which both I'm
quite happy.
So to state I'm saying Canon is crap, that's just childish behaviour. ;-)

I have quit reading any posts by Rita and RichA because it's ALWAYS the
same song, get a life before you become like them.

Although I have to admit that Rich is a little over doing it, Rita is quite
a knowledgeable lady, who more then others offers good advice. When she
speaks of Canon and Nikon, it's from her experience using both.

As far as the childish ranting goes; you do quite a lot of that yourself.

After all: I did start this topic, so I'm not blindly saying Nikon is
perfect. But after all the things I read about both companies, holding
several Canon DLSR's in my hands and having owned several Nikons, I just
rather invest my money in Nikon. Not just for one, but many reasons.
Ergonomically I feel Nikon has more logical and easier controls and just
feels better in my hands. For example the dials are at your thumb and at
your index finger, where as Canon (5D and 40D) has it somewhere on top.
And, sorry, the kitlenses of Nikon run circles around the ones from Canon.
You're in serious denial if you don't agree.


--
Sosumi

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:03:00 -0500, "jean" wrote:
: So I'll keep you up to date.
:
: Save it, not interested...

Then if I may make a suggestion, why don't you just stop reading this thread.

Bob

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
jean wrote:

There isn't a single car
in the world that has not been in a garage to fix something, even
Rolls need repairs, when you get on a plane, do you check it's
service record?

BULL****!

One of my work trucks is a 2001 and hasn't had any services than oil
changes, lube job, and a set of tires. There's a difference between
routine
maintenance and "repairs" for vehicles. None of my Nikons needed any
repairs so they are good. Now stop being an idiot and just admit that
Canon
lenses really do suck.

Why do you think taxi drivers in most countries in Europe drive Mercedes?
They get more than 600,000 miles on it with little trouble. I don't see any
VW or Toyota do that.

Just to stay on topic:
I rearranged the rim by pushing it inside and added a UV filter. Looks like
better than new ;-)


--
Sosumi