Streak inside lens 600TC

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

N

nautiboy

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I finally got my 600TC after almost a year's wait. I was very excited, but upon close inspection I noticed a streak on the inside of the front element. It's not easy to see and you need to shine a flashlight at just the right angle. It was even more difficult to get a photograph of it .... Now my guess is that it's unlikely to affect my photos in any perceptible way. Certainly I've been out a few times already taking photos and I haven't seen any artifacts, and have generally been as impressed as I expected to be with the shots. Though whether or not it might show up if the light hits at just the right angle and/or just the right situation/subject comes up ... I'm not sure. So now I'm debating what to do. I'm not really thrilled with the idea of sending it into Nikon, as that's a bit of a hassle and is not cheap (properly insuring is the real killer). And I'm not thrilled with letting go of it for a while now that it's in my hands (since I'm NPS, maybe I can get a loaner, though I don't know if they even have these lenses available for loan).

Just curious what others would do. Ignore it and convince myself that it's never going to have a perceptible impact, or send it in?

Here's the best photo I was able to get of it. This is showing maybe 1.5 inches of the streak - the whole thing is maybe 2.5 inches long or so. And it's definitely on the inside of the lens, which is also somewhat obvious because of the out-of-focus dust spots on top of it.
_DSC2621-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I'd probably contact Nikon and let them know. I'd send them some photos like this one.

The reality is that with a minimum focusing distance of 4.3 meters that streak won't be visible as a streak at all. But in theory at least it costs you a bit of micro contrast whether or not it's actually visible in your photos.

IOW, I doubt you'd see any image quality problems but personally after spending over $15,000 for a lens I'd want it to be pristine on arrival especially when it comes to something inside that you can't easily clean yourself.
 
Member's gallery
I'm still waiting for a 600TC, but I definitely expect it to be pristine after the wait and given the price. I agree with contacting Nikon and pushing them to get you a solution.
 
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
I finally got my 600TC after almost a year's wait. I was very excited, but upon close inspection I noticed a streak on the inside of the front element. It's not easy to see and you need to shine a flashlight at just the right angle. It was even more difficult to get a photograph of it .... Now my guess is that it's unlikely to affect my photos in any perceptible way. Certainly I've been out a few times already taking photos and I haven't seen any artifacts, and have generally been as impressed as I expected to be with the shots. Though whether or not it might show up if the light hits at just the right angle and/or just the right situation/subject comes up ... I'm not sure. So now I'm debating what to do. I'm not really thrilled with the idea of sending it into Nikon, as that's a bit of a hassle and is not cheap (properly insuring is the real killer). And I'm not thrilled with letting go of it for a while now that it's in my hands (since I'm NPS, maybe I can get a loaner, though I don't know if they even have these lenses available for loan).

Just curious what others would do. Ignore it and convince myself that it's never going to have a perceptible impact, or send it in?

Here's the best photo I was able to get of it. This is showing maybe 1.5 inches of the streak - the whole thing is maybe 2.5 inches long or so. And it's definitely on the inside of the lens, which is also somewhat obvious because of the out-of-focus dust spots on top of it.
View attachment 74122
Click to expand...
I would start by contacting Nikon and see if they would like you to send the pictures that you have taken of the issue. Then see what their thoughts are. I would also say that the issue obviously bothers you, I know that beyond a doubt it would bother me. For a $15,000 lens I would expect it to be perfect and I would be returning it. Another possibility is that it could get worse and at that time maybe out of warranty.
 
Member's gallery
Here in OZ, Nikon pick up and re deliver door to door any of your camera gear.

Nikon there should do the same, this issue you have should be addressed fully free and under warranty.

The issue in your photo is 100% unacceptable. These lenses have been reported as all hand made and usually one person is used from start to finish unless things have changed, so the question is how did this get through.

QC issues are like a cold, or virus, easy to catch harder to get rid of unless you act sooner than later.

The contaminate be it dust dirt chemical residual what ever, may ? - could ? turn possibly into growth fungus mould over time.

I wouldn't buy this lens from you used unless i drooped you on price, a dealer of shop would pick it up easily as you have and would drop you on price.

I always look into a lens pointed at a bright ceiling light and manually hold the aperture blades open looking for fungus, dust,
or element de lamination in the optics.

The shape or form pattern indicates cleaning spray residual and the wiping with a tool paddle was not clean. (best assumption)
The question is what else may be hidden internally or done poorly.

As to it being the front element you lucky and its why the images don't reflect the issue.

Usually this front element is a cheaper sacrificial protection element, by design,
Nikon usually would just swap it out or clean it quickly. Mine was done on a 600 F4 when it was scratched by a flying stone at a car rally. At the time it cost around $250 AU and one hours labor.

I would demand Nikon collect it fix it and re ship it all under their responsibility, and i would insist that the rest of the lens be thoroughly inspected.


That's what your fully entitled to.

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
O said:
The shape or form pattern indicates cleaning spray residual and the wiping with a tool paddle was not clean. (best assumption)
The question is what else may be hidden internally or done poorly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my thought too.

O said:
As to it being the front element you lucky and its why the images don't reflect the issue.


I would demand Nikon collect it fix it and re ship it all under their responsibility, and i would insist that the rest of the lens be trhougly inspected.
Click to expand...

Man, that's an awesome service. I would love it if Nikon would pick up and delivers repairs here. But sadly, we need to ship them to their California facility.

And as a follow-up, I did contact Nikon. They didn't really say much. They asked for a photo, and after they received the photo, they just said I should fill out an NPS priority repair request. I really hate dealing with packaging/boxing up these big lenses and shipping them (I've done it with my 800f5.6E and my 600f4E). But, it is what it is. The problem I have now is figuring out when. I want to be out taking photos over the Thanksgiving holiday, and almost immediately after that I'm flying to Pennsylvania. I was originally planning on taking my 600TC, and figured I'd just ship it in for repair after I got back. But I just got the notice that my 400TC is finally shipping and ought to be here before I leave. So another possibility would be to take the 400TC on my trip and ship the 600TC before I leave so that I can get it back in my hands sooner. The problem is that there are some Bald Eagles at the lake where I'll be, and I'd really like the extra reach to get better shots of them (assuming they're nice and come out and play ....). On the other hand I really want to take more big animal shots on this trip too, and in the forest where there's less light, the 400TC would be really nice. And yes, I know it's pretty ridiculous to own both the 400TC and 600TC - that wasn't my original plan - but a few things went my way which afforded me the option of splurging.
 
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
Yeah, that was my thought too.



Man, that's an awesome service. I would love it if Nikon would pick up and delivers repairs here. But sadly, we need to ship them to their California facility.

And as a follow-up, I did contact Nikon. They didn't really say much. They asked for a photo, and after they received the photo, they just said I should fill out an NPS priority repair request. I really hate dealing with packaging/boxing up these big lenses and shipping them (I've done it with my 800f5.6E and my 600f4E). But, it is what it is. The problem I have now is figuring out when. I want to be out taking photos over the Thanksgiving holiday, and almost immediately after that I'm flying to Pennsylvania. I was originally planning on taking my 600TC, and figured I'd just ship it in for repair after I got back. But I just got the notice that my 400TC is finally shipping and ought to be here before I leave. So another possibility would be to take the 400TC on my trip and ship the 600TC before I leave so that I can get it back in my hands sooner. The problem is that there are some Bald Eagles at the lake where I'll be, and I'd really like the extra reach to get better shots of them (assuming they're nice and come out and play ....). On the other hand I really want to take more big animal shots on this trip too, and in the forest where there's less light, the 400TC would be really nice. And yes, I know it's pretty ridiculous to own both the 400TC and 600TC - that wasn't my original plan - but a few things went my way which afforded me the option of splurging.
Click to expand...
Sooner than later sounds good..........

For consumers they charge $5 or $15 for a courier to collect or
re deliver, for NPS in my experience i haven't paid yet.

I was doing an indoor arena event and my dslr shutter failed halfway through, the event broke for lunch, Nikon with in an hour and half sent out an employee with a loaner and took back my failed unit, two days later they sent by courier my repaired camera with its new shutter and sadly sensor that was damaged as a result.

On another occasion i was on the Gold Coast 1000klm north of Sydney, covering an international event, i was swamped by a freq wave and damaged my camera, i limped along with my travel DF that did a good job because it was better than nothing, i had lent my D5 to a colleague also covering the event as his camera gear didn't arrive as his luggage missed the plain, another mate lent him and spare lens so he was happy.

Nikon grabbed a D4s of the shelf and sent it same day courier that really came over night, the following morning it was at reception, happy days.

I covered the event, the Df on my 300 2.8 VR II with a 2x TC III did the job especially well and even some other shots at 8000 iso and 12800 LOL. Also the D4 and DF both cameras have the same sensor.
They were all taken as JPEGs, and cropped, the negative space was for text logos articles, these images were delivered and used by the clients happily.

We are lucky we are a small population in a large country, i lived in New York city for a while coming home to OZ for a while its like landing in a small country town by comparison LOL.

Only an opinion


DF TCx2-300 2.8-5fps-.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

_STP26635-1rz (2).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

_STP1162-1rz-2 - Copy (2).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
I'm not really thrilled with the idea of sending it into Nikon, as that's a bit of a hassle and is not cheap (properly insuring is the real killer).
Click to expand...

Is the lens insured? If so your insurance may cover the lens during shipment. I have insurance through NANPA with Rand Insurance. I checked when sending my 600 f4 in for service. Like you say insurance is a killer if you go with UPS/Fed EX insurance. I was told that their insurance covered my lens 100% of the time including while being shipped to Nikon.
 
Member's gallery
mdirvin said:
Is the lens insured? If so your insurance may cover the lens during shipment. I have insurance through NANPA with Rand Insurance. I checked when sending my 600 f4 in for service. Like you say insurance is a killer if you go with UPS/Fed EX insurance. I was told that their insurance covered my lens 100% of the time including while being shipped to Nikon.
Click to expand...
Yeah, actually that thought occurred to me after I posted. I joined PPA earlier this year and got the plus/scheduled coverage to cover my equipment. The policy generally seems pretty comprehensive, including “not sure what happened …”. So I bet shipping is covered, but I need to double check.
 
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
I finally got my 600TC after almost a year's wait. I was very excited, but upon close inspection I noticed a streak on the inside of the front element. It's not easy to see and you need to shine a flashlight at just the right angle. It was even more difficult to get a photograph of it .... Now my guess is that it's unlikely to affect my photos in any perceptible way. Certainly I've been out a few times already taking photos and I haven't seen any artifacts, and have generally been as impressed as I expected to be with the shots. Though whether or not it might show up if the light hits at just the right angle and/or just the right situation/subject comes up ... I'm not sure. So now I'm debating what to do. I'm not really thrilled with the idea of sending it into Nikon, as that's a bit of a hassle and is not cheap (properly insuring is the real killer). And I'm not thrilled with letting go of it for a while now that it's in my hands (since I'm NPS, maybe I can get a loaner, though I don't know if they even have these lenses available for loan).

Just curious what others would do. Ignore it and convince myself that it's never going to have a perceptible impact, or send it in?

Here's the best photo I was able to get of it. This is showing maybe 1.5 inches of the streak - the whole thing is maybe 2.5 inches long or so. And it's definitely on the inside of the lens, which is also somewhat obvious because of the out-of-focus dust spots on top of it.
View attachment 74122
Click to expand...
I’m in agreement with a lot of the comments so far, this is a very expensive lens & for some of us a once in a lifetime purchase so I’d want my copy to be perfect. Send it back & get a replacement. JMHO.
 
Member's gallery
markymark said:
I’m in agreement with a lot of the comments so far, this is a very expensive lens & for some of us a once in a lifetime purchase so I’d want my copy to be perfect. Send it back & get a replacement. JMHO.
Click to expand...
I have been for 18 months complaining about Nikon to tighten their Quality Control protocols, many people normalize the issues by saying everyone has QC issues, or their wasn't that many units with faults.

I Disagree, that said yes companies they do have issues, but preventing many of them is not hard.

Companies often say its better to deal with issues as they come back rather than do a major recall, to some degree that makes sense.

My main complaint is to actually step up the QC protocols, systems, pathways whatever is needed to improve maintain quality outcomes.

Issues in flag ship products be they simple or serious high or low numbers is just unacceptable.

Issues often come from design issues, material change or quality, a chnage or laps in production processes or procedures, QC stations or systems failing.

Excuses are unacceptable, prevention is better than cure, yet it doesn't mean 100% of everything needs to be QC tested.

Is it cheaper to address complaints from the field rather than recall 100% of product in the field, these are decisions made based on the severity of the issue.

Bottom line, in the OP lens issue, did the wiper ? fall off inadvertently, did the operator miss one element, was it a shortage of experienced staff due to COVID the cause.

On a $15,000 hand assembled ? lens having a dirty or contaminated lens element, its the procedure being reviewed to ensure quality standards are flawless in this item that i am complaining about.

Nikon has had a spate of issues warranting a review of QC protocols with the view to being tightened on the cards.

Don't want excuses, just trust restored. If they missed this element seen in the OP did they miss things elsewhere that may effect longevity free use.

Z9, Z8, 600 F4 TC...............strange that issues occur at this level.

The message needs to reach No 1.

Each lens at this level needs to be flawless no exceptions.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
1 is 2 too many. As a retired aviation instrument technician trust me quality escapes don’t happen only one time. I’ve seen new instruments that; ran backwards, wasn’t even close to being in calibration not at one point but every test point, total failed one test that I had never seen fail before it failed BIG time upon opening someone had altered a part to such an extreme we could repair it, sent it back to UK no idea what they did repaired or scrape it. So defects unfortunately happen and never only one at a time. We are all human and sometimes mistakes and errors happen and when those mistakes and errors occur and align at the same time by multiple people we the consumer receives a defective product.
 
Member's gallery
For what that lens costs that is absolutely unacceptable. I'd send it back tomorrow morning for a new copy, which hopefully would be problem free. If it had been purchased used at a low price and the streak doesn't impact the images I'd be happy, but a brand new lens at full price -- no way!!!! Doesn't Nikon have a final inspection after the lens is assembled by someone other than the person who actually did the assembly?
 
Member's gallery
If it were my lens, it would go back to Nikon immediately. Even if I knew it wouldn't impact the quality of a photo, I'd expect it to impact the quality of my photography, as I'd be prone to think about it every time I used it.

Please keep us informed of your decision and how it is resolved.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
If it were my lens, it would go back to Nikon immediately. Even if I knew it wouldn't impact the quality of a photo, I'd expect it to impact the quality of my photography, as I'd be prone to think about it every time I used it.

Please keep us informed of your decision and how it is resolved.
Click to expand...

It's definitely going back. My two remaining decisions:
1) When to send it, which depends on which lenses I decide to bring on my trip back East.
2) Whether to insist on a new copy or let them fix the existing one. I'm a bit torn on that one. Most posters so far have recommended insisting on a new copy, because it's unknown what additional issues might exist in my current one that just can't be seen. On the flip side, there's no guarantee that a new copy wouldn't have something wrong, also possibly unseen. If they're specifically looking at this, in theory they'd be taking a look and addressing anything else they find. I dunno - some things are never quite as good if you take them apart after manufacturing, whereas some things can actually be better. I don't know where something like this lens sits on that spectrum. And of course there's also the issue of if (or when) a new copy would even be available to send me ....
 
Member's gallery
I'm not sure if the 600Tc is the same, but the F mount exotics have a sacrificial element on the front that is easy to replace should it become damaged. It would appear that this issue may be on th back of this element or maybe the next one in line. It would be simple for Nikon to remove the outer element, clean everything and put it back on.
While I agree that this type of QC issue should never occur, the solution in this case seems relatively simple and not very invasive.
The longer you wait to send it in, the less likely you are to get a replacement. I suspect Nikon will be more than reluctant to do anything more than a repair.
 
Member's gallery
O said:
Here in OZ, Nikon pick up and re deliver door to door any of your camera gear.

Nikon there should do the same, this issue you have should be addressed fully free and under warranty.

The issue in your photo is 100% unacceptable. These lenses have been reported as all hand made and usually one person is used from start to finish unless things have changed, so the question is how did this get through.

QC issues are like a cold, or virus, easy to catch harder to get rid of unless you act sooner than later.

The contaminate be it dust dirt chemical residual what ever, may ? - could ? turn possibly into growth fungus mould over time.

I wouldn't buy this lens from you used unless i drooped you on price, a dealer of shop would pick it up easily as you have and would drop you on price.

I always look into a lens pointed at a bright ceiling light and manually hold the aperture blades open looking for fungus, dust,
or element de lamination in the optics.

The shape or form pattern indicates cleaning spray residual and the wiping with a tool paddle was not clean. (best assumption)
The question is what else may be hidden internally or done poorly.

As to it being the front element you lucky and its why the images don't reflect the issue.

Usually this front element is a cheaper sacrificial protection element, by design,
Nikon usually would just swap it out or clean it quickly. Mine was done on a 600 F4 when it was scratched by a flying stone at a car rally. At the time it cost around $250 AU and one hours labor.

I would demand Nikon collect it fix it and re ship it all under their responsibility, and i would insist that the rest of the lens be thoroughly inspected.


That's what your fully entitled to.

Only an opinion
Click to expand...

O said:
I have been for 18 months complaining about Nikon to tighten their Quality Control protocols, many people normalize the issues by saying everyone has QC issues, or their wasn't that many units with faults.

I Disagree, that said yes companies they do have issues, but preventing many of them is not hard.

Companies often say its better to deal with issues as they come back rather than do a major recall, to some degree that makes sense.

My main complaint is to actually step up the QC protocols, systems, pathways whatever is needed to improve maintain quality outcomes.

Issues in flag ship products be they simple or serious high or low numbers is just unacceptable.

Issues often come from design issues, material change or quality, a chnage or laps in production processes or procedures, QC stations or systems failing.

Excuses are unacceptable, prevention is better than cure, yet it doesn't mean 100% of everything needs to be QC tested.

Is it cheaper to address complaints from the field rather than recall 100% of product in the field, these are decisions made based on the severity of the issue.

Bottom line, in the OP lens issue, did the wiper ? fall off inadvertently, did the operator miss one element, was it a shortage of experienced staff due to COVID the cause.

On a $15,000 hand assembled ? lens having a dirty or contaminated lens element, its the procedure being reviewed to ensure quality standards are flawless in this item that i am complaining about.

Nikon has had a spate of issues warranting a review of QC protocols with the view to being tightened on the cards.

Don't want excuses, just trust restored. If they missed this element seen in the OP did they miss things elsewhere that may effect longevity free use.

Z9, Z8, 600 F4 TC...............strange that issues occur at this level.

The message needs to reach No 1.

Each lens at this level needs to be flawless no exceptions.

Only an opinion
Click to expand...
Yes, re QA! From the sidelines (and as a consumer of Nikon goods) I've watched in dismay as the internet driven frenzy for 'new on top of new and just make it newer ' demands has screwed with Nikon's (often mocked, but not by me) manufacturing schedules (a new pro cam every x years, for example); that push, me thinks, has had some real implications for quality assurance outcomes. Flawless (agree with you 100%) is possible (see Nikon's history of flawless products), but not if it's rushed by the sales and marketing teams (or the CFO squealing about share price)....
 
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
It's definitely going back. My two remaining decisions:
1) When to send it, which depends on which lenses I decide to bring on my trip back East.
2) Whether to insist on a new copy or let them fix the existing one. I'm a bit torn on that one. Most posters so far have recommended insisting on a new copy, because it's unknown what additional issues might exist in my current one that just can't be seen. On the flip side, there's no guarantee that a new copy wouldn't have something wrong, also possibly unseen. If they're specifically looking at this, in theory they'd be taking a look and addressing anything else they find. I dunno - some things are never quite as good if you take them apart after manufacturing, whereas some things can actually be better. I don't know where something like this lens sits on that spectrum. And of course there's also the issue of if (or when) a new copy would even be available to send me ....
Click to expand...
It all depends on who is going to service the lens.
There was an incident recently with a Sony 600GM owner, who's lens, nely bought, was not able to produce a single truly sharp image. I believe that the local Sony service points tried for many months to get the lens up to spec, but although improving it, the rental lens that the owner rented to test his own lens against, was still significantly better.

These ultra high priced lenses should go back to Japan, to the factory where they are made, to be serviced and brought up to the level that they should perform at. That is my take on it. I would have it serviced if at the factory in Japan, but not locally. In that case I would ask for a new copy, and they then should send the return copy back to Japan, but it won't be your problem anymore.
 
Member's gallery
nautiboy said:
It's definitely going back. My two remaining decisions:
1) When to send it, which depends on which lenses I decide to bring on my trip back East.
2) Whether to insist on a new copy or let them fix the existing one. I'm a bit torn on that one. Most posters so far have recommended insisting on a new copy, because it's unknown what additional issues might exist in my current one that just can't be seen. On the flip side, there's no guarantee that a new copy wouldn't have something wrong, also possibly unseen. If they're specifically looking at this, in theory they'd be taking a look and addressing anything else they find. I dunno - some things are never quite as good if you take them apart after manufacturing, whereas some things can actually be better. I don't know where something like this lens sits on that spectrum. And of course there's also the issue of if (or when) a new copy would even be available to send me ....
Click to expand...
I would do it before you use it so they can't blame you for it. I would also ask for a new one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top