Where to get parts for a Nikon D5000 SLR, with DX VR: AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G lens?

Page 1 of 5  
Is it possible to replace just this tiny ring in the Nikon lens?

It's a Nikon DX VR: AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G lens on a Nikon D5000.
I dropped the camera and the only thing that broke was this tiny piece of plastic around the lens (which, unfortunately, holds the lens on the camera):

I'm not a camera expert but if I could buy the part, I could figure out maybe how to install it on the lens.
In addition, after dropping the camera, I realized I need a lens protector (glass filter?) for the outside of the lens. Where best can I get one cheap mailorder?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:02:40 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."

Funny you should mention that. I did exactly the same thing with the same lens. That broken flange stops the lens from locking on to the camera body. It's a very common problem when the camera is dropped.
I took it to my local camera repair shop and was told that the part needed would cost him $70 and he'd add labor to that. He said that Nikon charges $110.00 for the repair.
And, he told me in no uncertain terms that repairing the lens would be a waste of money. A replacement lens can be obtained on eBay for about $100, and that's a faster and probably cheaper way to go if you really want to continue to use the lens.
I use either my Nikon 35mm prime lens or my 18/200 Tamron lens instead.
As far as you buying the part, I tried to take my lens apart to see if I could do that, but I can't figure out how to do it. It unscrews, but there's a doohickey attached that I can't figure out.
As far as a filter, a lens hood is more protection, but you could buy (Amazon.com product link shortened)
This is a better protective device: (Amazon.com product link shortened)41537834&sr=8-2&keywordsRmm+rubber+lens+hood
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:25:15 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

Wow. $30 is 20% of the cost of a new lens (at $150 for the lens on Amazon).
Something seems wrong.
How could a simple non-moving low-tech screw on filter be that expensive relative to an entire zoom lens?
From an engineering standpoint, I must be missing something fundamental. Can someone clue me in to what is the reason for the huge expense of such a simple part?

Now we're talking bang for the buck! - Screw on AGFA 52mm Heavy Duty Rubber Lens Hood APSLH52 $4.50
It seems this hood will screw onto the lens and that the filter can screw onto this hood, right?
BTW, how did you know that the "DX VR: AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G lens" was 52mm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 05:45:02 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."

Yeah. Paying $150 when the lens is available new for a third less elsewhere.

Because I have the same lenses. My first DSLR was a Nikon D40. It's basically the same camera as you have, and uses the same lenses.
The only thing different about my 18-55 is I don't have the VR (Vibration Reduction). I don't think that's needed with the 18-55, but is with the 55-200.
Look, on this filter thing, think it out. Use some logic.
There are three basic causes for lens damage:
1. Dropping the lens or the whole. A protective filter offers absolutely no protection from drops unless the contact point is directly to the lens.
2. Bumping the camera with lens attached. When you have the camera strap around your neck, and the camera swings around, it can bump into things. Again, unless the contact point is directly to lens, a filter does no good at all.
3. Sand, and other debris, getting on the lens and causing scratches if the lens is cleaned improperly. A filter stops this, but the filter is damaged if cleaned improperly. Filters aren't free.
The better solutions are the use of your lens cap when you aren't actually shooting and the use of a lens hood at all times.
The lens hood acts as a bumper, so incidents in #1 and #2 are far less likely to result in lens damage when the contact point is the directly towards the lens. It doesn't guarantee the lens won't be damaged, but it significantly reduces the chances. Significantly.
I prefer the rubber lens hoods instead of the rigid plastic or metal hoods. The rubber lens hoods can be rolled back instead of removed to fit the camera in your bag or when the hood creates a shadow when the built-in flash is used.
There's an argument that cheaper filters degrade the image, but I'm not going to get into that. It's not a proven thing either way.
The conclusion I reached is a) always keep the lens cap on when not shooting, b) use a rubber hood at all times, and c) don't waste money on a filter.
Make your own decision, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

which it can easily be.

and if it is the front element, then it does.

neither are lenses. it's a whole lot better to replace a $10 filter than a $100 lens (in this case).
4. the lens cap comes off inside the camera bag and scratches nearby glass. this happened to me. fortunately, i had a filter and only had to replace the filter.

true, but that has nothing to do with using a filter. both a lens cap and a hood can be used with filters.

the rigid hoods flip around so there's no issue in fitting in a camera bag. they are also more effective since they're built for a specific lens and the aspect ratio of the sensor. rubber hoods are generic.
as for shadows, learn how to properly use flash and you won't get a shadow.

it is definitely proven, but if you can't see the difference then you don't need to buy expensive filters.

that's the only good advice you've given.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nonsense. The face of the lens is the least exposed element if the camera is dropped.

The lens hood offers more protection.

There's a better solution than a cheap filter: a lens cap.

Buy better lens caps. I've never had that happen.

Built for a specific lens? Only in diameter to fit just like the generic rubber hoods that screw on. Have you actually ever seen the Nikon rigid lens hoods for these lenses? They are generic for all 52mm lenses. It has nothing to do with the sensor. What kind of bullshit are you on about now?
The rubber hoods screw on and stay on. Much less bother than flipping.

The built-in flash (which is what I specified in my statement) will cause a shadow with the lens hood on when you are photographing close-ups (aka: macros, but not real macros). No technique used the photographer can stop that. When doing close-ups using the built-in flash, you need to either remove a rigid hood or roll back the rubber one. Personally, I use a Nikon Speedlight instead of the built-in flash.

I can't see the difference because I don't use cheap filters.

Even if so, one more piece than you've provided.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nonsense right back. the face of the lens is very exposed, and for some lenses (mostly wide angle), it's *very* exposed.

nonsense. a lens hood cannot offer more protection than a filter which *covers* the front of the lens.

lens caps don't work too well when you want to take photos.

it was a nikon lens cap that came with the nikon lens.
just because you've never had it happen doesn't mean it can't ever happen to others.

yes.
nonsense.
i sure have. i own several nikon lenses, all with their respective hoods.

very wrong. nikon makes a *lot* of different hoods for their lenses.
<http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/list/Lens_Hoods/categoryI D.43893300/?results 0>

it has everything to do with the sensor. think about it for a moment.

and less effective.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:40:44 -0700, nospam wrote:

I agree. The lens cap that came with the camera is a pain to take off and on and off and on and off and on and off and on and off and on and off and on ... all day ... every day.
Most of the time, I leave it off.
I do need a filter. I'm convinced of that, if for nothing else, than to protect the lens from what happened to my last zoom lens (when the boy scouts dropped it on the rocks and cracked it).

Sigh. If it 'can' happen, it already has happened to me: a) Battery doors fall off (coolpix p&s) b) Battery charger destroys battery (coolpix cp5000) c) Lenses break (see photo above & the whole point of this thread) d) Cameras stop working (see photo below)
etc.
What I need is a low cost (~$1,000) 'war camera'.
Do they make one?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NO!
--
Regards,

Savageduck
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it's not a pain. it snaps on and off very easily.

no wonder you have trashed lenses.

you need a lot more than a filter can offer.

no, what you need is to learn how not to trash your equipment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your fault.

Ah, yes, you want the filter *and* the front elements to break under the impact. Sure thing, go ahead. We need someone to funnel money into the industry.

Yes, if you force them all the time, some day they will fall off. Usually people can get 5 or 10 years out of them.

I'm sure there was a passage in the instructions not to leave the battery in for days.

Happens every time you use them as sledge hammers. Guaranteed.
But, duh, at these cheap lens prices you can buy a lot.

Happens every time you use them as sledge hammers. Guaranteed.
But, duh, at these cheap camera prices you can buy quite a few.

It's called a sledge hammer. They're much cheaper. They take a *lot* of mishandling. You can drop them from over your head. You can smash them into rocks and concrete walls. They can be taken most everywhere. They should do almost everything you need. They can even take a bullet.
You can even make images with them, just use a chisel and a stone plate. But don't whack it to hard, or the image quality suffers.
Anyway, a normal ruggedized camera won't work for you. Not even something like (random url) http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product 21
An additional deep underwater housing won't work for you.
You need to look at stuff like http://www.visntec.com/Vision-Technologies-Products/p/3 http://www.dvsmil.com/custom.html
Military cameras such as http://graflex.coffsbiz.com/military.html won't handle the abuse you routinely subject your cameras to.
-Wolfgang
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Wolfgang Don't be so gentle - tell him the truth.
--
Neil

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:12:33 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:

:)
Realistically, I 'have' told the kids to always use the Nikon camera strap when they borrow my plastic Nikon SLR ... and I do like the idea of the camera 'skin' that was proposed (although it omits protection of the all-important plastic lens).
In hindsight, looking at all my broken plastic cameras, most of my point- and-shoot cameras fail on the fragile battery doors (Nikon Coolpix varieties) and on the pop-out lens (Olympus varieties).
So, the rule there is avoid at all cost any Nikon plastic point and shoot unless/until they learn how to design a door hinge ... and basically avoid 'any' point and shoot that has a motorized pop-out lens (Olympus or otherwise).
Looking back at all the plastic SLRs, I'm astounded to realize it's mostly the lenses that broke, almost all at the fragile plastic bayonet mount, although one stopped working mysteriously just after snapping photos in the pumice of Thera, probably because of the very fine dust infusion.
One plastic camera broke from the sulfuric fumes of swimming in the waters around a just-submerged volcano (which also claimed my otherwise rugged Rolex watch, interestingly enough). Yet another failed to survive its very first cross-country ski trip down Mount Washington on my New Year's Eve vacation trip.
So, in summary, a rough visual autopsy shows that the plastic lens mounts (on all the plastic Nikons I've owned) and plastic door hinges (only on the plastic Nikon Coolpix variety I've owned) and motorized lenses are what seem to break on these plastic (essentially throwaway) cameras.
Next time, I'll buy a sturdier camera for sure, as I realized, belatedly, that it has cost me far more for the cheap plastic Nikons than if I had bought a camera actually built to handle daily use in the real world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why on Earth are you letting the kids have the opportunity to damage your cameras?

What exactly are you doing to damage all these battery doors? If you use a little care when opening them they will certainly last indefinitely, so there is something else going on with those experiencing these problems. My very first Nikon camera, a 3MP CP770 is still working in the hands of my "Step-daughter from Hell".

That might be a rule for you and your level of rough usage.

Why are you astounded? They are the least expensive and least rugged lenses Nikon markets. Do not expect the same level of performance and construction out of a $350-$500 Nikon lens as you would get from one of their $860-$2200 lenses.

...and now there are two Rolex watches on the casualty list.
Please list the physical injuries you have sustained as you wreaked mayhem upon the machinery around you.

How did motorized lenses get into this?

You are viewing the World of cameras through a very distorted lens.
--
Regards,

Savageduck
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:58:30 -0700, Savageduck

The D40, D60, and the D5000 all take AF-S lenses with the motor in the lens. Other Nikon lenses that will fit camera body will not autofocus. You can manually focus, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:00:02 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

I'm curious.
This is great information.
But how do you know that?
That is, what specific 'feature' do I look for in a lens to know if it will work with my existing D40/D60/D5000 Nikons and how it will work in a 'future' unspecified as yet Nikon 'war camera'?
Is it the "AF-S" feature alone?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it's common knowledge, and it also says that in the specs.

a 'war camera' is likely to have a focus motor in the body because it's not going to be a low end model.

af-s means the lens has an internal focus motor so it doesn't matter if there is one in the camera body.
non af-s lenses do not have an internal focus motor, which means the camera body has to have the motor. if you use a non-afs lens on a camera that lacks a focus motor, it will not autofocus. however, the autofocus system is still running and you will have focus confirmation as you manually turn the focus ring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:41:37 -0700, nospam wrote:

This is great information.
So, do I have it right based on what you kindly wrote?
1. The so-called Nikon 'war camera' is likely to have a focus motor in the body while the D-series Nikons I own (D50/D60/D5000) do not have a focus motor in the body.
2. Nikon AF-S lenses have a focus motor in the lens while non AF-S lenses have no focus motor.
3. I can use any Nikon AF-S lens in any Nikon camera and it will automatically focus (because there is at least one focus motor).
4. I can use any Nikon non-AF-S lens in any Nikon camera but it will not automatically focus in the D-series cameras I own (because there is no focus motor).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:49:16 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."

There is no "war camera". That's your own invention. If you would ask a credentialed combat photo-journalist why he chose the cameras he carries, he'd talk about the features non-related to durability. His "war" preparation is more likely to be his camera bag because he's concerned about how the camera is protected when *not* being used.
Sgt Jeremy Lock was Military Photographer of the Year in 2007. He carries a Nikon D2X. You could break a D2X just as easily as a D40.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the d50 has a focus motor. the others do not.
you can tell by a mechanical coupling pin around the 7 o'clock position when looking into the mirror box, or by just trying a non-afs lens.
as for a mythical war camera, it's likely to have a motor because only midrange and high end cameras are weather sealed and ruggedized, and those are the cameras that users with a lot of lenses tend to buy, so there's a motor included for the older lenses they might already have.
low end bodies are rarely used with more than 1 or 2 lenses, normally the kit lenses which have their own focus motors, so there's no point in having an additional and redundant motor in the body that won't ever get used. as a result, the camera can be lighter and less expensive. low end bodies are not going to be ruggedized or sealed, so you really don't need to worry about a focus motor.

correct.
yes if the camera is an autofocus body *and* knows about af-s lenses, which goes back 10-15 years (i don't remember exactly when they first came out). obviously, older manual focus bodies will not autofocus.
older nikon autofocus bodies do not know about af-s lenses because af-s had not yet been released, so they will only focus with lenses that have a mechanical coupling. the logic for af-s is not in the camera and it actually has fewer pins on the mount.

correct, almost (ignoring the d50 which has a motor).
the issue is with very old non-ai lenses from the 1960s and early 1970s. those will not fit on most recent nikon cameras and are almost guaranteed to cause damage if you try.
however, they *will* fit on the nikon bodies that don't have focus motors, e.g., d40, d60, etc. without damaging them.
this is not a guarantee and whether this remains true in the future is unknown. it's more of a fluke that they work, as opposed to being a deliberate design decision by nikon to maintain compatibility with 50 year old lenses.
if you have a non-ai lens, you *must* check to see if it will cause damage and be absolutely positive it will not. if you aren't sure, do not even try.
it's unlikely you have any of those lenses or ever will because they're so old, so i wouldn't worry too much about it. however, just in case you do or find a lens at a garage sale for a buck or two that happens to be non-ai, you need to check before you damage something, which you seem to do so easily.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.