Geek Articles

Taking Apart the New Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S

Published December 2, 2016

We recently tested the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens and were mightily impressed. Optically it was better than I’d ever expected. We had idly talked about doing a teardown when stock allowed, but we got an unexpected opportunity yesterday: one of our week-old copies had some significant dust in both the front and rear lens groups. We know (like hopefully you know) that some dust doesn’t affect images, but our customers like their lenses dust-free, so we decided to open this one up and clean the dust out of it and to take a few pictures while we were doing it.

I try to identify where my head is whenever I write about anything, so you’ll understand when I go all fan-boy or all snarky. Like everyone else, my expectations going in have a lot to do with my impressions coming out. In this case, I told Aaron before we started that given how awesome this lens was optically that I expected Nikon’s optomechanics were going to modernize, too. Unlike previous Nikon lenses, I thought this lens would have nice,  modular construction, no soldered wires running hither and yon, not so much Kapton tape holding stuff down, and maybe even some curved circuit boards. You know, like a lens from the 21st century, not like one from the 1980’s. Aaron didn’t think so.

Well, I was a little bit right but mostly wrong. There is some real modularity and superb construction to this lens. There were also big chunky square circuit boards and wires soldered hither and yon held down with Kapton tape. None of which has anything to do with making a lens take better pictures or making it last longer, but it does make it a pain to take apart and work on.

Oh, and we have a special bonus in this teardown. I thought Nikon’s marketing for this lens got a little nauseating with stuff like “pushes boundaries of imaging possibility, one that can take your photography and videography to a thrilling new level.” I figured with all the workforce reduction they’d been making; they’d started borrowing Leica’s copy writers or something. But in this case, they take stretching the bounds of reality a bit far, and I’ll go all snarky about that later in the teardown. So you’ve got that to look forward to.

So Let’s Take Out Screws and Stuff!

Since we’d never taken one of these apart, Aaron decided to start with the back, because that way he could set it on the front while he worked. The bayonet mount comes off in the usual fashion; easier now that Nikon has gone to electronic aperture controls. There is a nice, thick weather seal around the bayonet mount and it fit very snugly in the lens., 2016, 2016


With the bayonet off, we can look into the rear barrel. It’s nice and clean, with a couple of flexes just visible up by the electronic connector., 2016, 2016


Four large screws held the rear barrel in place. For those of you following along at home by disassembling your own copy, make sure you remove the screws holding the flexes in place and disconnect them, otherwise you’ll rip them out of the switches on the rear barrel. With that done, the rear barrel slides right off. Notice the thick layer of felt sealing at the bottom of the picture where the barrels attach., 2016, 2016


Here’s the inside of the rear barrel, with the switch flexes I spoke of above. Soldered, not plug-ins, but after some argument Aaron agreed this didn’t count as a real solder. Does it matter? Not much, except if you break a switch it’s may be simpler for the repair shop to just replace the rear barrel instead of the broken switch. On the other hand, some might argue that soldered switches are stronger and less likely to break. Some might., 2016, 2016


With the rear barrel off, we get to look at the inner mechanics a bit. This is where I lost my bet with Aaron that the lens would be more modern. This would also be where I’d say I lost respect for Nikon’s marketing department, but that would be silly since I have no respect for any marketing department. Here’s a quick tour as we rotate around the inside of the lens.

First is the GMR unit (the silver thingie held on with two screws), which is pretty much like every other GMR unit. If you take a lens apart and see this, don’t touch it, don’t breathe on it, don’t even stare at it for very long. It’s the lens repair version of crossing the streams., 2016, 2016


Rotating the lens just a bit we get to see those nice, chunky, flat, old-fashioned circuit boards Nikon loves to use; and yes, the soldered wires. Look, these work just fine, apparently, since Nikon has been using them since about 1965. It’s like my mom’s pink wired wall phone in her kitchen – it works great, so why change? At least they don’t run hither and yon; there are some nice plastic clips holding the wires in place. Sorry, I’m just bitter because I lost my bet with Aaron., 2016, 2016


Looking at the other side of the lens we see wires and flexes are held in place with Kapton tape, as is traditional with Nikon lenses. This doesn’t amount to anything as far as how the lens functions. But I’m a geek, which is why I like taking things apart, and the geek appeal here is low., 2016, 2016


This view also exposes Nikon’s ongoing creative marketing. Many of you probably think the designation of SWM on this lens, which stands for Silent Wave Motor, means you get an expensive ring ultrasonic motor. Not so much. That’s the focusing motor there with the green band around it. Fanboys are going to scream that I’m splitting hairs trashing Nikon’s marketing about SWM, since this is technically an ultrasonic motor (although other manufacturers have the decency to call them micro-ultrasonic to differentiate them from ring-ultrasonic). Let’s look at a screen grab from the Nikon page for the 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens:

Note Nikon’s text says “–rather than a gear system–to focus the lens”. If you look at the motor, what do you see? Correct. A gear system to focus the lens. The lens still focuses just fine and while it’s not silent, it is very quiet. But please don’t tell me it’s “better than a lens with a gear system” when it has a gear system, OK? Y’all must think nobody’s ever going to open up your lenses and see you’re blowing smoke up our internet.

OK, now that I’ve calmed down we’ll take a look at that rear group from above. (Remember, part of why we’re here was to get the dust out of the rear group.) The rear group is in a housing that mounts to the lens on three arms at 10, 2, and 6 o’clock., 2016, 2016


Each arm is held in place with a screw and then covered with white glue. Looking closely showed the legs were shimmed and that this is also a centering element., 2016, 2016


Now we don’t mind recentering an element or correcting its tilt, but when the manufacturer goes to the trouble of glueing the screws in place, and the optics are fine, we tend to go with the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ principle, which is what we did here.

The very rear element in this group appears to be held down by a screw-on locking ring, but again it was heavily glued, so we left it alone.  (The dust you see in the picture is on the surface of that element, not inside. The dust inside was minor enough that we decided it could stay rather than ungluing and recentering everything.), 2016, 2016


Since we decided to leave the rear group alone, we took off the rear assembly in one piece., 2016, 2016


Other than the glass elements we described above, this assembly contains the diaphragm unit and flexes connecting the electrical contacts to the rest of the lens., 2016, 2016


With that assembly out of the way, we’re looking at the next element. It’s also held in a plastic mount with three arms screwed into the mid barrel, but this time it’s neither a centering or a shimmed element, so it’s coming out., 2016, 2016


It’s a pretty impressive chunk of glass,, 2016, 2016


rather thick and strongly curved., 2016, 2016


Looking back in the rear of the barrel, we can now see the focusing group down inside the motor ring., 2016, 2016


This motor ring comes off easily as a single unit. I made fun of Nikon’s old-fashioned electrics and mechanics earlier, but they’ve designed a much more modular and simple disassembly with this lens than most of their older lenses., 2016, 2016


As long as the motor ring is off,  I’ll go back to my natural sarcastic state, and we’ll take another look at that Silent Wave Motor that’s ‘better than one with a gear system.’, 2016, 2016


My snarky comments are reserved for the marketing department. The engineers did a very nice job making the focusing system in this lens work quite well. The gears  I showed above are flexible nylon-like material, so they’re quiet. The focus rollers you see below are large, heavy duty, and secured into large brass inserts., 2016, 2016


There’s even a nice tensioner to keep even pressure on the focusing ring, so it has smooth, mild resistance., 2016, 2016


Next, we turned our attention to the front of the lens. The filter barrel removes easily after taking out three screws reached through slots in the focus ring. Again, there is thick felt sealing where the filter barrel joins the focus barrel., 2016, 2016


Removing a set of thick screws and inserts lets us then slide the focus barrel assembly off of the back of the lens., 2016, 2016


The focus barrel assembly is quite complex, and again we get to see some careful, thoughtful engineering goes in to making the focus movement so smooth and constant on this lens. Once it’s removed a nest of rings comes out of the barrel., 2016, 2016


Laid out you see there are two smooth friction rings with a ring tensioning spring between them, the distance scale ring, and on the far right the geared ring that the focusing motor gear train actually turns., 2016, 2016


Inside the focusing ring is an electronic sensor that goes over a brush assembly on the lens barrel. This isn’t an absolute position sensor; it seems to measure rate and distance turning of the focus ring., 2016, 2016


With the filter barrel off, we can take a look at the actual optical focusing mechanism. In this lens, the focusing group has a very long travel which should allow very precise focusing; a good thing with a wide-aperture 105mm lens. The two images below show the movement at the two focusing extremes., 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016


Finally, we turned our attention to the front group. Remember getting dust out from under the front element was another excuse for this exercise. The front element is held in place by three pairs of screws. There’s no centering here, but there are shims under each pair of screws so this element is adjusted for spacing, or perhaps spacing and tilt., 2016, 2016


It came off quickly enough, and when we examined the shims they were of different thickness, so both spacing and tilt are being adjusted here. For this particular copy, it wasn’t a big tilt, with a thickness ranging from 0.4mm to 0.44mm., 2016, 2016


The bad news for us is the dust we saw isn’t under the front element, it is within that front group of two elements, which is sealed. For those of you with enquiring minds, it probably is not environmental dust, but a crumbled piece of cement within the group, so the group will have to be replaced. If this were my personal lens, of course, I’d leave it alone, but it’s a rental, and someone will lose their mind when they see a dust flake in their rental lens.

Since we’d come this far, we went ahead and took out the second group., 2016, 2016


With the second group removed, are left with just the focusing element in the lens barrel., 2016, 2016


Because everyone asks, yes we put it back together. Yes, it works perfectly fine and is optically unchanged. And since we can’t buy replacement front groups we’ll have to send it to the Service Center to get the front group replaced. The smaller amount of dust in the rear group could probably have been removed but would have required optical readjustment after it was done. Since it’s going to the service center anyway, we’ll see if they’ll take care of that too.


I always hope to see engineering elegance in a disassembled lens, and this lens has some of that. The construction is very solid. There are heavy duty rollers, cams, and bearings and the standard ‘polycarbonate shell over metal core’ construction that most high-quality lenses have theses days. The care taken to engineer a smooth, accurate focusing feel is very evident. The weather resistant seals are thorough, even if not dramatically over-engineered. (If you consider asking if it is weatherproof, I will, of course, refer you to the warranty which reads ‘void for moisture damage’).

There is some engineering lack of elegance, too. I poke a little fun at the solders, wires, and tape that we only see in Nikon lenses these days, but they work just fine, and the end result is good. The throwback lens construction is becoming kind of endearing to me, in a nostalgic kind of way. There’s not a real downside to it that I can tell; Nikon lenses are just as reliable as anyone else’s.

While I’m never surprised when a new lens gets some dust in it early on, I’m disappointed that it’s occurring in sealed elements in this lens and will require element replacement. But this is just one copy; that doesn’t mean it’s going to be an ongoing problem. It might. It might not. Time will tell. Since few of you are ever going to clean dust out of your lenses it probably won’t matter to you at all.

The focus motor marketing bothers me a lot, although I realize it won’t bother many of you. I’ve long been sick of marketing departments hiding all facts and telling me to trust them, this new lens will make me a dramatically better photographer. But in this case, they’re pretty dishonest in telling me this lens has an advantage because it has a gearless system when it actually has a geared system.

Does it make the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED anything other than a great lens? Nope, it’s a great lens and solidly constructed. Its focusing system is still excellent and accurate, no matter what kind of motor is driving it. It’s just my personal battle, charging the cloudy darkness created by the giant windmills of marketing.

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

December, 2016


Addendum: about 24 hours after this post was referenced by DP Review, Nikon changed the wording describing the SWM motor in this lens, removing any reference to gears. Their description is factually correct now.

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Geek Articles
  • Photographer100

    things hold well,…until they DONT
    Go google “NIKKOR … GEAR GRINDING” see what you get

  • Photographer100

    no just labor costs, China also has hardcore currency manipulation, making it EXTRA sweet to build in china

  • Photographer100

    ad hominem and off topic.
    None of this has any bearing on the 100s of lenses passing thru my hands that grind from slipping GEARS.
    OF WHICH cannot happen on a ring ultrasonic
    ……which would only cost nikon about $12 more per lens to integrate.
    Go google “NIKKOR … GEAR GRINDING” see what you get

  • Photographer100

    its not the NYLON gears are inherently bad (you dont listen obviously)….rather that the AXLE of the main gear rests on a plate bolted to plastic, a hard knock or minor drop and then the gear is ASKEW
    even tungsten carbine gears are USELESS if theyre ASKEW and SLIP
    theres the PROOF, that and 20 years repairing lenses under my belt.
    ultrasonic ring motors DONT do this..
    Go google “NIKKOR … GEAR GRINDING” see what you get

    You said “so I’ve gone out of my way to reassure people.”…….yes youve gone out of your way to tell HALF THE STORY on the matter

  • nononononono

    I agree with what you’ve written, and to clarify, my issue isn’t with your article or anything you’ve said; it’s a great article (as are all your articles that I’ve seen so far.)

    My issue is with the Angry Photographer and his disciples. I apologise for the drama here; it is often difficult to be heard publicly.

    Normally I don’t care about such things, but he’s acquired a large enough following to cause a financial problem to various companies and photographers on YouTube. He’s the equivalent of having the town’s drunk sit outside your shop 24/7 warning people not to buy your product. While Sony (and Nikon in this case, although it seems like Sony’s the company he targets the most) can obviously handle losing a few sales due to his venomous tongue, it still doesn’t make it right. It is sad he and others have taken what you’ve said out of context.

    I appreciate you publishing articles like this. They’re very objective and helpful.

  • Kaouthia

    Let me rephrase, the lens is supposed to spin around at the same speed regardless of body, because all it basically requires is the voltage and to be told “start looking”. Some bodies take longer to actually hit their target, but that’s mostly due to crappy AF modules in the bodies themselves. But, the lenses still adjust at the same speed.

    With regular AF lenses, it’s dependent upon the speed of the motor inside the camera (whereas AF-S lenses use the same motor regardless of which body they’re on).

    If I get time later, I’ll charge up one of my old D100 batteries and see how it compares.

  • fanboy fagz

    absolutely the 300 has a motor inside. I bet you that lens has a nice ultrasonic motor. first gen.

    Im not certain the speed is the same on all bodies. maybe @Thom Hogan

    can chime in.

    some are more responsive and the tracking and low light ability is different on bodies. the speed it moves from close to far is the same. the speed it locks is body dependent. my 28-70 AFS 2.8d is also motor inside and a d lens. the G means the newer gilded lenses with no aperture ring.

    curious why there is 10 pins on the lens and 8 int he camera. not sure. too lazy to take my gear out.

    but the d prime lenses are much faster then the g primes even twice as fast. the 70-200 2.8s have the ultrasonic motor inside. the g primes have the cheap slow geared af motors.

  • Excellent! And to add my $0.02, I don’t have any issue with the use of this motor on this lens. It’s the tool for the task and works well. I will add that ring USM motors fail regularly and can become unstacked with impact damage, we see it all the time. So I did not (as others seem to want to claim) make any statement regarding reliability.

    My issue was only with marketing making an incorrect statement, which they have since taken down and corrected.

  • I don’t disagree with you in general, John, but on what point was I mistaken about the description of the motor? If I was mistaken, why did Nikon change their description? In all seriousness, I have no problem with the motor in this lens, it works well, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be reliable. I simply think it should be factually described in the marketing material.

  • fanboy fagz

    Ive shot with the 105 at weddings matt. The focus is smooth. But not fast at all. Its pretty accurate. But then again so is my 85 1.8d on the d5.

  • So basically, it’s a great lens, with unrivaled optics at its focal length, unless you spend 2-3x the money and give up AF. Speaking of AF, the 105’s is blazing fast, it’s built very solidly overall, but you try to cast doubt on it because the description of the motor (you feel) may have been inaccurate … on which point, ultimately, you might have been mistaken. Your “personal battle” smacks more of “self-flagellation” to me.

  • Kaouthia

    The problem is that regular AF lens speed is dependent upon the body being used. Some will AF much faster or slower than others. I notice a definite difference in the focus speed of my AF lenses with my 14 year old D100 bodies vs more recent bodies like the D810.

    AF-S lenses, however, are the same speed on all bodies, regardless.

    Also, the D designation does not mean it doesn’t contain an AF motor. I have a 300mm f/4D AF-S lens here that has both a built in AF motor and an aperture ring (it focuses just fine on bodies like the D3200 which don’t contain an AF motor).

    D just means it has the distance chip. G means it has the distance chip and no aperture ring. There are also G type lenses out there that require bodies with a built in AF motor as they don’t have one built into the lens.

  • I’ve had some Nikon flagship pro glass that required $600 worth of work after just a small bump, (ummm, aluminum shavings coming out of the zoom barrel casing?) …and I’ve had some Nikon “prosumer” glass that took an absolutely brutal beating and yet kept working like a charm, and stayed optically perfect.

    Similarly, there are a handful of all-metal Canon L lenses that are utterly pathetic and prone to de-centering so badly that they might as well be a tilt-shift Instagram filter.

    At this point, I don’t judge a lens until the serious abuse reports start coming in. I don’t care which parts are plastic or metal, I trust the engineer to *try* to pick the right materials for the job. Its the design itself (and QC) that makes or breaks equipment in the long run.

  • Canon *has* started shipping some non-L lenses in bubble-wrap instead of form-fitting foam / cardboard carriers.

  • SO, the question is, are they trying to say that the 105 f/1.4 is going to buck this trend of D autofocus having higher torque than SWM lenses? Because if that is the case, then nomenclature is just pedantic, I wanna eat some proof-pudding!

  • King of Swaziland

    Because the sensors are made by giants. Only giants can make such an extraordinarily small and sensitive sensor.

    Seriously, because the size of the effect is “Giant” compared to ordinary magnetoresistance. Later they found an even bigger, different effect, and called it Colossal Magnetoresistance. And when they subsequently found a still larger, completely different effect, they ran out of superlatives and were reduced to calling it merely “Extraordinary” Magnetoresistance. I suppose the next effect found will be merely “fine,” unless they pull out the thesaurus and go for “incredible.”

  • Photographer100

    sorry you dont know about gear slippage

  • revaaron

    PCBs do tend to look alike. There’s no reason to believe that Nikon would have used some special type of PCB – sparkly with Teflon-coated dust – just because it’s an expensive lens.

  • akkual

    Plastic gears hold well. Take apart some heavy use CD-player from 80s and be amazed, or some photocopier from an office with heavy use. It’s very rare that the gears are the wrong goers.

  • akkual

    Seems to me that the motor in that lense is SWM. There are different kind of SWM motors, the ring motor is not the only way to do it. This one just uses two gears to transfer the power to focusing elemnt with two gears. However, this can be as fast and even more precise in AF as ring motor, because the motor uses same piezoelectronic crystal defining stepping + gears. The AF system you do not want, is servomotor/traditional stepper motor + gears.

  • akkual

    Huge internet rumble over two gears. Let’s approach that first on engineering wise:
    1) The gears seem to be there just to transfer the movement of the motor on the ring. It’s pretty much physical necessity, if no ring motor is used. The gear ratios seem to be 1:1, so they don’t seem really comparable to e.g. Canon Micro USM gear systems.
    2) In general, the accuracy of the AF motor system is based on the steps it can take. With the ring motor (SWM ultransonic vibration basically is just highly elegant stepper motor) the dictating factor is the piezoelectric crystals of the ring. With similar separate micro SWM motor + gear(s) + teethed ring the dictating factors are the piezoelectric crystals of the motor and the teethed ring -ratio. So with this organization there is better refinement of the points available to focus the lense as one step on over these piezoelectrical crystals may translate to less travel than in the ring equivalent. Thus, in this kind of lense I understand the selection of gear + teethed ring.
    3) Plastic gears are strong enough to provide tens of years of use. I have disassembled several devices with such gears that have daily use of over 20 years and the gears are like new.

    In marketing wise looks to me, that Nikon marketing just copy-pastes that SWM text all over every lense. In this case they are on grey are, though. Typical cheap AF motor + gears use either stepper motor or DC motor and position sensor (aka. servomotor). These systems are bad. The gears have some high transfer ratio, because stepper motor nor servomotor cannot have very precise refinement. Thus, these mechanisms produce poor AF accuracy and lot of trial and error during focusing, because miniscule refinements are impossible close to the focus point.

    However, Silent Wave Motor (or pietzoelectric ultrasonic wave motor) has very refined stepping by its own design, which accuracy is dictated by the piezoelectric crystals, not because of gears. In this lens, Nikon uses same kind of very refined motor, but also clearly uses gears, hence marketing arguably is misleading. But the gears are probably there also to produce even more refinement in the AF accuracy or making the lens manageable in size. And even if those gears are not making it more refined, they are not making it worse either in comparison to those more traditional stepper/servo motor + many gears -systems.

    But bottomline: I think people overreact on this “ring motor is much better” -thing. What you want is the piezoelectric ultrasonic wave motor in one format or another.

  • Omesh Singh

    A wise man once said: “The customer is always right, except when they are completely wrong.”

  • johann jensson

    Anecdotal, but here’s my 2 cents: I had quite a few Made in Japan products that had defects because of poor quality control (LCD monitors, lenses, etc). After exchanging the problematic product for a comparable one that was Made in China, the quality was flawless. The takeaway? Times change.

  • Chris, my stance has always been if you can show me it affects a picture it’s a problem. So far no one ever has. We only go to this trouble because it’s easier to remove it on the front end than to have a customer disappointed because they think the dust will ruin their pictures. If it was my personal lens I don’t bother.

  • Gearsau

    So, Nikon goes there because of labor costs. Not the only company doing that . However, China isn’t ” cheap ” any more.

  • thxforinsults

    In this video of yours, you mention helicopters within the first minute or so. I was the only person to post a link to my helicopter I had built (, so I can only assume you’re referring to me as a “pseudo intellectual knuckle dragging unintelligent” whatever. Then you go on to say the Nylon gear in the helicopter is “heavily reinforced.” You’re wrong.

    No reinforcements to the nylon gear. None were necessary.

    The only infusion is molybdenum disulfide to reduce the friction coefficient but there’s no kevlar weave or other such reinforcements in the gear. I know, because I MADE IT MYSELF. Not assembled, but actually made the gear (it’s a custom gear; I wanted to make my helicopter more powerful so it can tick-tock better.) I also made the servos (I used premade casings though.) I changed the molecular structure of the undercarriage so I could land it more harshly for autos (for the uninformed, it’s when you cut your engine at high altitude and land without power), but no reinforcements were needed for the gear.

    In regards to intelligence.

    If you want to bet $10,000 for a game of chess (you claim you’re a champion right?), BO1 or BO5 (I don’t mind) or bet $10,000 that your I.Q is greater than mine, be my guest. I’ll happily set that up with you but calling me an unintelligent whatever on the internet seems rather pointless.

    Quite frankly, it disgusts me that you berate others non stop, you literally beg for donations yet criticise others for receiving “kick backs.” You go on lengthy rants about Jason Lanier, Tony Northrup, Matt Granger, etc. all of which are helpful, decent people. You’re not only a disgrace to the online community but I think you’re a disgrace to yourself.

    I wouldn’t mind if you actually knew something about anything, but apparently that’s too much to ask for.

  • TwoStrayCats

    And then I would take all those parts and mail them back to Nikon and ask them to reconstruct my, err, lens.

  • nonono

    The Sony a7rII I bought has increased in price and I’ve owned it since release. I wish my other electronic items would depreciate like that ;). Obviously we buy into a system and not just a camera, and the Zeiss lenses I own seem to hold their price better than my Canon glass did. Having said that, Canon glass seems to hold its value quite well so I’m certainly not complaining there. I’m putting in a large order for some broncolor equipment, and I expect that will hold its price as good as you can expect.

    In regards to the heating issue, it is not something I have experienced myself but I do believe it is a problem for some people in specific climates (I say specific climates because I haven’t personally witnessed a single photographer with this problem and I can only assume ambient temperature makes a difference).

    I get the impression I could have said I shoot with Leica and you would have had a problem with it. Canon sensors have had a recent recall. Nikon had a recall with oil problems from what I remember. There’s problems with every manufacturer, but I’m happy with my equipment.

    I can honestly say I’ve had more problems with Canon cameras and Canon customer service than I have with Sony. But I am by no means a fan of Sony. I’m sure I’ll have problems with them one day.

  • chrisgull

    Roger – curious on your stance re dust inside lens. I just sold my 135/2 DC lens on the auction site, I mentioned in description that there were “a few dust specks” inside the lens, buyer now wants to return the lens as defective as there are “at least 20 dust particles”. What’s to be expected when buying an 18 year old used lens?

  • nonono

    “The 105 E will not last given it’s construction.”


    “I’m glad to see you have discovered Wikipedia.”

    I wish you would read it–perhaps you’d learn “its” is possessive.

Follow on Feedly