Is it possible to replace just this tiny ring in the Nikon lens?
formatting link
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):
formatting link
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?
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
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?
Yeah. Paying $150 when the lens is available new for a third less elsewhere.
Yes, but why? Read on.
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:
Dropping the lens or the whole. A protective filter offers absolutely no protection from drops unless the contact point is directly to the lens.
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.
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.
neither are lenses. it's a whole lot better to replace a $10 filter than a $100 lens (in this case).
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.
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.
Calling 800-645-6687 and spending more than an hour with them, I find:
Nikon will sell parts to consumers
Nikon will not provide a parts diagram.
You have to describe the part, and they will sell it to you.
For me, that part number is a "bayonet mount" PN 1C999-601-2 .45
The filter is apparently a 52mm glass filter
People tell me I can get the filter for about mail order
Most say the lens will be difficult to fix
Mostly because of the circuit board ribbon
So I will write up a pictorial DIY to help the next person!
EMOTIONAL ISSUES: (take them with a grain of salt please)
In hindsight, the Nikons I bought from Costco (Coolpix 5000, Nikon D50, Nikon D60, and Nikon D5000) are all junk cameras; but it's not their fault. Here is a snapshot of just the broken ones in the top of my camera box just now:
formatting link
The Costco Nikons just can't take daily use. I guess they're for vacations only in good weather and only under sterile conditions (not normal day-to-day life). For me, I need a camera that can go where I go. Nothing more complicated than that - but it has to take jostling and dropping and nudging and bouncing around like any camera should.
Nonetheless, I blame nobody but myself for buying the Costco Nikon junk. It's all my fault. Plastic is plastic. Plastic is junk. Plastic breaks. All the time. They don't last a year. However, since I already own them, I'm trying to fix this one camera (and maybe I'll fix the other four or five in my camera box if this works).
------- HELP ------- The one open question is how to get a hold of the exploded parts diagram for Nikon equipment (because Nikon won't supply them!).
Q: Do you know where to get exploded diagrams of Nikon equipment?
While that's probably true, it's undeniable that this teeny tiny piece of plastic that holds the bayonet mount of my Nikon lens onto my Nikon camera broke from being dropped a very short distance onto a hard concrete floor.
Also, looking at the pictures I posted, I can't imagine anyone denying that this is a weak link in the lens mount.
If that weak link were engineered out of better materials, what would have happened?
I don't know: a) What I hope would have happened is ... nothing. b) But, maybe dropping the camera would have broken something else.
But if (b) is the answer, how the heck do 'war photographers' get their job done? What I do in daily life can't even be 1 millionth of what they do with their equipment.
Q: Given I use the camera every day for personal use (I'm an old guy who isn't jumping out of airplanes anymore so it's pretty tame stuff), what would you recommend is a sturdy SLR that won't break like this Nikon did?
I realize some people only use a camera on vacation, and for that, the plastic Nikons probably don't break as much as mine do.
I'm not hiding the fact that I jostle, bump, and drop my plastic Nikon cameras. They get wet when I take them in the rain. They get sandy when I take them to the beach. They get cold and wet with condensation when I take them to Tahoe in the winter. And they get bumped around when I take them backpacking.
I don't deny I take my camera everywhere I go.
But you also can't deny the little tiny piece of plastic that broke off my bayonet mount was destined to break. It took a small drop onto hard concrete - but that's all it took to break it.
Looking at the design, it's no wonder it broke.
I know nothing of bayonet mounts. Nothing except what I've learned from you guys today.
May I ask: Q: What bayonet mount is made better than this plastic one?
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).
formatting link
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)
I agree. A Nikon D5000 or Nikon D50 or Nikon D60 or Nikon CP5000 (all of which I bought from Costco) would break the same as that camera from anywhere else.
My mistake for not being clear.
The cameras that Costco sells (for about $1,000 or so) are all plastic. And the plastic is (apparently) the problem for someone like me who simply takes a camera with him wherever he goes.
To be clear, I did try the waterproof cameras (yes, from Costco), and quite a few of the little Olympus cameras, but the quality from those P&S cameras was basically atrocious.
The Powershots lasted a while but even they had a bad fixed lens, so, that's whey I moved to SLRs.
What I 'really' need is to fix what I have and then, when they're no longer fixable, to buy the least expensive 'war camera' SLR out there.
Any suggestions on the least expensive STURDY! SLR?
I don't really know if a filter would have helped.
Here is a picture of the crack.
formatting link
It's hard to see but it's a u-shaped crack in the relatively flat glass on front of the lens. The marking on the lens say: Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G
Looking closely, there are also little tiny dots of what appears to be the broken bits of glass scattered about. I can take a better picture if you need more information.
I didn't 'see' the camera get dropped. The kids were taking pictures, and, when I got the camera back, it had the spar. I didn't know who did it and they didn't say. It was, of course, my fault for letting 10 year olds use my camera ... but that's a foregone conclusion.
They were playing on boulders and snapping pictures so I can only assume they dropped it (or swung it into the rocks).
That might be too much detail - but - I wonder - would a filter have prevented this crack?
Those cameras were never designed to take that sort of environmental abuse. You are trying to get Range Rover performance and ruggedness out of a Prius.
Check on the specs of the cameras you purchase. None of your cameras is weather sealed, you pay for that. You are going to have to look at Pro and/or prosumer level cameras along with their higher cost to get close to what you are looking for. The D300S has a degree of weather sealing, but not as complete as its FF brethren, the D700, D800, D3(x), and D4.
It was a piece of equipment never designed to take the abuse you consider normal. It was meant for a photographer who might actually care for and look after his equipment.
The mounts on better, more costly and premium lenses.
My 'next' SLR is going to be weather sealed, whatever that means in practice! :)
I'll need to look up what "FF" means, but, I'm starting to realize I probably should have bought ONE expensive (say D700) kit instead of four cheap ($1,000) Costco plastic Nikon SLR kits (CP5000, D50, D60, and D5000).
It looks like a quick google of the D700 puts it at around $2,000, so, given I can re-use my existing lenses, the math works out that the D700 without lenses is only about twice the D5000 was with lenses.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.