Nikon 28-105D on DX Body Problem

[Stagecoach]

I recently considered using my Nikon 28-105D (note, not newer IF version) for landscape work and gave it a test today on the D300 from the comfort of my balcony. I have used this lens previously on a D80 but mainly for it's macro function.

From what I encountered it either has a focusing problem or is not compatible on the DX body although quick investigation suggests it should be.

Here's what I found and wonder if anyone has any ideas?


a) In Manual focus I am unable to obtain sharp focus on objects in the distance, they are unsharp in the viewfinder. Basically, if I manually focus on a tree 25 mtrs away the lens focus ring is at it's max, which on the lens aperture markings coincides with the infinity symbol.

With my other lenses if I focus on this same tree at 25 mtrs I can also focus on objects well beyond it putting this tree well out of focus.

b) Auto focus works fine and locks on for near and far objects between the zoom range 28 to approx 50mm.

I purchased this lens some years ago and it has had minimal use other than for its macro function and it is possible I never noticed these problems before.

Am I overlooking something obvious and for info aperture function appears to be all working correctly.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

I have used this lens previously on a D80 but mainly for it's macro function. From what I encountered it either has a focusing problem or is not compatible on the DX body

The D80 is a DX format.

Beyond that, I'm no help. Hope you get it worked out soon!

[Stagecoach]

The D80 is a DX format.

Beyond that, I'm no help. Hope you get it worked out soon!

Mike,

When using it previously which would have been on the D80 it would have primarily been with it's 'Macro' setting where I may well not have noticed a problem and I only found this today when trying to critically focus on a distant tree.

Further research since the first posts pretty much confirms it is compatible with a DX as many posters have praised it's performance although a few concerns about its autofocus not locking on.

I have now noticed that when the focus ring comes to a stop at the far focus end it does not have a nice solid 'clunk' feel as at the opposite end. Is there dirt or something stopping the full travel??

Grahame

[f8andbethere]

Let me ask an obvious question, is the lens out of it's macro setting? Are you getting the full zoom range out of it? I have the same lens and I've used it on a D100(DX) that I no longer have and now use it on my D700(FX). Never had any issue's with either. When I get home I'm going to try and duplicate your problem with my lens in the Macro setting.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Dean,

Yes, the lens is out of it's macro setting. If it is in the macro setting you are restricted to between 50mm to 105mm range only and I am able to zoom between 28 to 105 mm.

I would be very interested if you could let me know where your lens focus ring is positioned at full far focus travel. At max rotation is the alignment 'exactly' at the centre of the infinity mark (as mine is) or does it rotate slightly past?

The problem does suggest that focus movement could be limited to near range as in the macro mode.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Well I have pondered over the focus problem of this lens for two days now and come to the conclusion it has an internal fault.

In its macro setting it's perfect, in it's normal setting it can only be focused on anything up to a maximum of 10 mtrs away and produces fully acceptable sharp images.

Searches on the net all suggest there is little point getting one of these repaired as the cost will be about the same as what they can be purchased for second-hand. This leaves me with three choices;

a) Keep it as a 'specialist' short range lens
b) Keep it as a third macro although it's only a 1:2 magnification
c) Take it apart

I have to go out and take some pictures otherwise I'll be getting the screwdrivers out

Grahame

[ajohnw]

Do Nikon offer Lens firmware updates?There is also a possibility that it's a camera firmware problem. I'm sort of assuming it's focus by wire when used manually and firmware at either end could cause these sort of problems.

I hope canon continue to remember by now rather old Canon lenses. I would hate to have to replace them.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

Do Nikon offer Lens firmware updates?There is also a possibility that it's a camera firmware problem. I'm sort of assuming it's focus by wire when used manually and firmware at either end could cause these sort of problems.

I hope canon continue to remember by now rather old Canon lenses. I would hate to have to replace them.

John
-

John,

The 28-105D lens does not have an internal focus motor and focus is driven by the camera. In manual focus with the switch on the camera dis-engaging the mechanical drive the problem is still present.

Two or three degrees additional rotation of the focus ring I'm certain would solve it.

Grahame

[f8andbethere]

Sorry for the late response Grahame, family in town for the Holidays. My lens in both manual and auto focus, macro and standard goes just a smidge past the center of the infinity mark while staying well inside of it. It goes past the center about the thickness of the line itself.

Sorry you have issues with this lens, it's my go to when I want to travel light.

[Stagecoach]

Sorry for the late response Grahame, family in town for the Holidays. My lens in both manual and auto focus, macro and standard goes just a smidge past the center of the infinity mark while staying well inside of it. It goes past the center about the thickness of the line itself.

Sorry you have issues with this lens, it's my go to when I want to travel light.

Dean,

Thank you very much for that information. Mine is spot on the centre of the infinity mark and has a totally different feel when it bottoms, almost spongy, whereas at the min focus end you can definitely feel a face to face stop.

Grahame

[royphot]

As far as I know all Nikkor lenses should allow the focus mark to go slightly beyond the infinity mark. This is to ensure that infinity focus can be achieved even when the lens barrel has expanded slightly due to high ambient temperature.

Roy

[Stagecoach]

As far as I know all Nikkor lenses should allow the focus mark to go slightly beyond the infinity mark. This is to ensure that infinity focus can be achieved even when the lens barrel has expanded slightly due to high ambient temperature.

Roy

Roy,

I have read this in many discussions and also in a few that with some older manual focus lenses this was not the case. Another reason discussed often is that on an auto focus lens it needs to be able to go past infinity so that it is able to hunt either side of it's focusing point before it settles.

With regard to temperature affect and the expansion/contraction differences I have considered this as our ambient temps here are around 28 to 32 deg C at present but it's not as if I have been leaving the lens in the sun so would hope this is not the reason. I'm tempted to put it in the fridge for a while and try it but that's going to give me condensation problems when I bring it out.

I suppose another option is to leave it in the sun to heat up well which could possibly soften any grease that has hardened restricting rotation:

Grahame

[royphot]

I only posted about the focus mark going beyond infinity, because some people think that is a fault, when it is actually a designed in feature. I suspect that there is something obstructing either the focus ring rotation, or there could be a blob of hardened grease stuck in the helix.

Gentle slow heating might just loosen it. If you go the other way to the fridge or freezer, ensure the lens is inside 2 sealed freezer bags to keep moisture out, and don't open those bags until the lens has returned to normal temperature.

Roy

[Stagecoach]

Following on from my initial post regarding the focusing problems of this lens I have good news today after getting the tools out yesterday

Yesterday I came across a web article regarding removing dust from the innards of a Nikon lens and it showed the front element removed and made reference to the spacer shims behind it. This got me to thinking whether someone had done this before on this one and replaced the front element back and not aligned it axially correct. There was absolutely no visible sign of either the locking ring or locking screw having been touched but off came the front element and three shims.

Inspection confirmed there was only one mark where the locking screw had located previously. I replaced the front element without the shims and on testing found that I could now focus both manually and using AF on far subjects that could not be achieved before. AF locked on quickly to subjects some 5Km away viewing on the LCD magnified confirmed good sharpness.

Knowing that this lens had slight fungus I decided to delve deeper, removing and cleaning both the element behind the front one and the rear for cleaning and also managing to clean both sides of the remaining one without removal.

So the lens is now re-assembled and I managed to get a couple of test shots off before my outside targets were deluged with rain, thunder and lightening.

Best focus @105mm that could be achieved manually on 220mtr target back in Dec on tripod. Would not lock AF.


Focus achieved @ 105mm today on the same 220mtr target using AF on tripod.


Front element shims removed and showing rear element removed for cleaning.


Focused on 5KM target using AF, note hand-held.


So things look good and just wondering what tests to undertake to determine whether I put back any of the shims (different thickness's totalling 0.62mm) or just leave as is.

I have undertaken a number of quick handheld shots at closer subjects and also in macro mode all appears good so far but have not blown these up to pixel peep.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

Grahame - my suspicion is that you should put the shims back in. They were put there for a purpose, to ensure that the mechanical and optical elements are positioned correctly.

It's not like someone in the Nikon lens factory decided your lens should have three shims, rather its because someone measured the assembly and in order to ensure that the lens meets specs, 3 shims were required.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame - my suspicion is that you should put the shims back in. They were put there for a purpose, to ensure that the mechanical and optical elements are positioned correctly.

It's not like someone in the Nikon lens factory decided your lens should have three shims, rather its because someone measured the assembly and in order to ensure that the lens meets specs, 3 shims were required.

Manfred,

With the full set of shims in (0.62mm) the lens will not focus on anything further than approx 25mtrs away when focussing manually so replacing them just gives me a lens that is very limited in use.

By removing them it has allowed physically moving the front element closer to the one behind when the focus ring is at its max rotation thus solving the focus problem for far subjects.

It may be that there is an internal problem within the lens, possibly hard grease restricting movement of the focus ring but having warmed it up in hot direct sun for a hour there was no difference.

I agree that it seems obvious that the specific thickness of shims was there to ensure alignment but also wonder if there's a possibility this specific lens got through the system not being correct as since I purchased it I can not confirm I would ever have noticed as it was bought purely for its macro function as I had the 18-200mm VR at the time covering this range.

Having found what appears so far as a 'fix' I am loathe to strip the lens further to investigate internal mechanics as it involves dismantling certain electronics and the risk.

If some controlled tests suggest that this 'fix' has given other problems I'll need to weigh those problems against further dismantling risks.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

Your description makes me suspect that there is a secondary problem with the lens, but if your fix works, go for it! You can always re-shim if things loosen up.

[ajohnw]

Manfred,

With the full set of shims in (0.62mm) the lens will not focus on anything further than approx 25mtrs away when focussing manually so replacing them just gives me a lens that is very limited in use.

By removing them it has allowed physically moving the front element closer to the one behind when the focus ring is at its max rotation thus solving the focus problem for far subjects.

It may be that there is an internal problem within the lens, possibly hard grease restricting movement of the focus ring but having warmed it up in hot direct sun for a hour there was no difference.

I agree that it seems obvious that the specific thickness of shims was there to ensure alignment but also wonder if there's a possibility this specific lens got through the system not being correct as since I purchased it I can not confirm I would ever have noticed as it was bought purely for its macro function as I had the 18-200mm VR at the time covering this range.

Having found what appears so far as a 'fix' I am loathe to strip the lens further to investigate internal mechanics as it involves dismantling certain electronics and the risk.

If some controlled tests suggest that this 'fix' has given other problems I'll need to weigh those problems against further dismantling risks.

Grahame

I'm inclined to agree with that Grahame. Basically fix or throw away. One thing I would check after doing something like this is that focusing up too and focusing back too are both ok at various distances. That should check for internal wear. Personally I would also pixel peep and see if adding some of the shims improves things.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

I'm inclined to agree with that Grahame. Basically fix or throw away. One thing I would check after doing something like this is that focusing up too and focusing back too are both ok at various distances. That should check for internal wear. Personally I would also pixel peep and see if adding some of the shims improves things.

John
-

John,

As you say fix or throw away was my intention as it was not worth considering professional repair from where I am plus all advice confirms repair would be far more than the lens cost me and if I wanted a lens of this range now I would simply buy a new model. I'm interested in this one as it could be useful for my landscape work.

With regard to determining shimming (if necessary) and testing I have the following plan now which splits into two separate areas;

a) Shimming requirement - which determines the lenses mechanical ability to focus on distant subjects.

Using the harbour scene as above I should be able to focus on any point manually that is closer than the building at 5000 mtrs and then focus 'past' it.

As an example, taking the red marker buoy centre which is at 2500 mtrs, manually focus on it, take pic, confirm focus ring can then be rotated farther to defocus it. Live view and physical rotation are good indicators here. If the buoy can not be defocused (this can be confirmed by pixel peeping), eg no more movement on focus ring there's something wrong.

Undertake tests at different distances and note results.

In reality, shimming if any should give a situation where the horizon (building at 5000 mtrs) can just be focussed past.

b) AF testing - which determines the camera/lens electronic ability to adjust focus accurately

This I see as a totally separate test once a) is done and I can use the recently posted methods to confirm it's accuracy. I'm not expecting wear problems as this lens looks in mint condition suggesting very little use.

Grahame