I have a nikkon 55-300 dx lens. Today while I was shooting the zoom ring became stuck then it must have broken as now it will zoom out but will not zoom back in. And it moves manually very easily. I took it to Hunts. They said it will cost me $240 possibly more for a repair. The lens is only $400 new. Has anyone had this problem? Is it worth fixing? Is it a fix I could attempt? I mean as is I cannot use the lens...just wondering if others have any experience with this. If my Lens is dead...what do you do with it? Throw it away? Or is there a market for broken lenses? And lastly, I'm a much better photographer than when I bought this lens, should I replace it with the same lens or should I upgrade....thoughts or suggestions on which lens to buy? I use this lens more than any other lens I own. I'm feeling a little lost without it and it's only been 3 hours! Thanks for any thoughts, suggestions or help!
I can't advise you even how to begin to fix it. I'd suggest you might investigate other lenses, I can't see how it is worth $240 to fix the, at best, average lens, that you can replace new for less than $400. Less used on eBay.
I'd investigate other "super zooms" if you still want a big zoom. The Sigma 18-250 is a good choice, inexpensive light and pretty sharp for a lens of this type. The (newer) Tamron 18-270 and the (even newer) 16-300 are other possibilities, the last being significantly more expensive and a little heavier.
Nikon have two 18-300 lenses, the (slightly) more expensive one ($999) is about 1/2 a stop faster at the long end, but is significantly heavy. If you don't need 300mm, the 18-200 has slightly better optics, is less expensive and is a lot lighter.
I don't know what other lenses you might have, but if you have never tried a fast "standard" prime, you might be surprised how great they can be in low light. And small and light. The f/1.8 35mm from Nikon is under $200 new and well thought of by almost everyone who has one.
I haven't had that happen with that particular lens, but had the exact same situation with a macro lens for my old Sony. I didn't bother getting a quote to get it fixed as I knew it wasn't going to be worth it.
If it moves easily manually (as does mine) you could always just manually focus. Manual focus?!?!? Who actually does that, right?? Haha ;) I don't have a macro for my Canon so when I get the urge to shoot some detail I just manually focus with my busted up lens. It takes a bit of practice (especially with a macro), but at least it forces you to slow down a bit.
I am using the Tamron 16-300 that Frank has mentioned, and I really like the freedom of going anywhere between 16 and 300. For bigger apertures, I have a 35mm prime lens, otherwise, the Tamron 16-300 is always on my camera and has not yet disappointed. I don't mind the weight, since the Nikkor 55-200 I used before for zooming was not the lightest one. So, I would recommend it.
@frankhymus Thanks for the thoughts. I agree it is silly to fix my old one. I will look into the others you suggested. I have an 18-55 kit lens and a 70-200 F/2.8 (but it is huge and a little impractical for shooting 3 softball games in one day! It's very heavy!) I use this 55-300 zoom for sports photography and nature shots. I think I want to stick with a zoom. @vera365 Thanks, I'll look into the tamron. I'm like you and this zoom was my go to lens. I really used it more than my others. Ahhh...it's also something. I was hoping my next lens would be a macro....oh well.
Up until a week ago I had never had that happen, but then all of a sudden, totally out of the blue, for absolutely no reason at all, my trusty 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens stopped focusing!! It still zooms in and out, but the focus ring will not work! I checked all the settings, put it on a different camera, nothing! So, Kurt's camera repair wants close to $200 for labor+parts, if needed, and I can buy a new one for less than $500. I hate to throw anything away, but it just does not seem worth fixing. It's about 6-7 years old, and it never was the best lens in my kit. So, I went out and got the Tamron 150-600mm, primarily because we are going on a safari in November, and so far I am really impressed with it. It is in no way equivalent to my 70-300, and I still miss that range, but at this point I would probably replace it with a 70-200mm f2.8. Or, get a used 70-300 for about $200 if I cannot stand not having that walkabout zoom lens. @colorfade Andrea, that's too funny about your macro lens.....glad it is still usable! The irony is that I specifically manually focus on my perfectly functioning macro lens as I have been told by "the experts" that having the camera on a tripod and manually focusing is the only way to go!! Consider yourself lucky! My zoom lens just refuses to focus on anything at all no matter which way I turn the ring! :-((
@dianen The Sigma lens I mentioned, the 18-250, has a "macro" in its name. It's not a true macro lens of course, but it does have a very close (I think 14 inches and that's from the plane of the sensor) minimum focus distance throughout its zoom length, so works macro pretty well, especially at 200mm or more.
I have the 16-300mm Tamron lens and I love it. I bought it when it was first released last year and I haven't taken it off my camera. It is heavier than the kit lenses but I don't find it heavy at all. That may also be because I don't have any experience with other lenses, as I had only used kit lenses before getting the Tamron.
@panthora Interesting! I havn't heard that advice before. I have pretty shocking eye sight so manual focus is a nightmare for me as I don't trust my eyes :( I just click away at slightly different distances and hope one of them hits the target...lol
@dianen Definitely not worth fixing. The Nikkor 55-300 is a fine lens, look around online and see what you can get another one for. Or buy one used and save $. I use a Nikkor 55-200 that I bought new on Amazon for $150 (Nikon had an instant $100 rebate) and absolutely love this lens. I think it has better IQ than the 55-300. Nikon often puts instant rebates on these consumer lenses.
In case anyone is interested I ended up buying the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S and I love it! I cannot believe the difference in my photos! It has made we start rethinking all my old lens! That's good but bad for my wallet! :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I'd investigate other "super zooms" if you still want a big zoom. The Sigma 18-250 is a good choice, inexpensive light and pretty sharp for a lens of this type. The (newer) Tamron 18-270 and the (even newer) 16-300 are other possibilities, the last being significantly more expensive and a little heavier.
Nikon have two 18-300 lenses, the (slightly) more expensive one ($999) is about 1/2 a stop faster at the long end, but is significantly heavy. If you don't need 300mm, the 18-200 has slightly better optics, is less expensive and is a lot lighter.
I don't know what other lenses you might have, but if you have never tried a fast "standard" prime, you might be surprised how great they can be in low light. And small and light. The f/1.8 35mm from Nikon is under $200 new and well thought of by almost everyone who has one.
If it moves easily manually (as does mine) you could always just manually focus. Manual focus?!?!? Who actually does that, right?? Haha ;) I don't have a macro for my Canon so when I get the urge to shoot some detail I just manually focus with my busted up lens. It takes a bit of practice (especially with a macro), but at least it forces you to slow down a bit.
@colorfade Andrea, that's too funny about your macro lens.....glad it is still usable! The irony is that I specifically manually focus on my perfectly functioning macro lens as I have been told by "the experts" that having the camera on a tripod and manually focusing is the only way to go!! Consider yourself lucky! My zoom lens just refuses to focus on anything at all no matter which way I turn the ring! :-((
It's slightly heavier, but the image quality is 10x better, focus is faster and the VR is noticeably way better as well :)