Is this the normal Panasonic build quality?

Hello

2 pictures





Is this the normal quality I should expect from a Panasonic lens?

I begin to feel I bought the lousiest and cheapest camera system ever. First: G1 rubber skin problem...the whole thing just looke cheap, Panasonic service was unfriendly, unwilling and made more problems.
Now that.

I do not use my equipment very often , nor do I use it under extreme condition. Most of the time I just carry it around in a my bag.

Anyone else ever seen that before?

Whenever Nikon or Canon release a small system I will have to change back again. At least Panasonic is crap to me. (Sorry for bad picture quality, but I was in a hurry)

Bodo

Both Nikon and Canon have had rubber ring problems. Backs for the Nikon N90 would actually get tacky to the touch (hygroscopic plastic). I have had friendly and unfriendly service from just about every company whose products (photo or non-) I have owned. Sigma lenses were well known to have a peeling problem with their 'pebble' finish--including thousand dollar optics.

--
http://www.artisticlens.com
http://www.artisticlens.com/blog

You do not answer my question

I had 4 Nikon lenses and 6 Sigma lenses since 2002. All have been looking like new when I sold them 6-8 years later.

Is this problem normal with the Panasonic 14-45? Will they replace it?

My problem: Around the next 150 miles there is only 1 Panasonic Service center, which seems to be the only possibility to get these things repaired. This service center sucks, because they are not a Panasonic store, they are just a dealer for everything. They refused to send anything to Panasonic if the guarantee card was not filled out (can you tell me any store in Europe which fills out a guarantee card? I can not).

I hate their service... I do not even want to go to this store anymore. But hey, Panasonic Service says 3-4 service centers are enough for 8 million people.

Same thing happened to me with the Nikkor 70-200VRII I just recently bought. Rubber collar was loose enough to get deranged and cause focus to stop working because it was dragging across the boundary.

If you think switching to Nikon or Canon gear will rescue you from ever having to deal with anything like this again, you're going to be sadly disappointed after your switch. If you've spent any time in the Nikon or Canon forums, you'd know that rubber collars are sometimes loose, and even worse, the friction cladding on the camera bodies sometimes comes off.

If it's bad (looks like you're stretching it... which'll eventually make it bad) send it back to get it fixed. If it's not bad - in my case, the loose rubber collar was on the front ring of the lens and not used for focusing or zooming, just there for texture - get it aligned and go back to shooting. I would NOT recommend doing your own glue job... the rings are not glued for a reason (often there's access to assembly elements underneath) and even when rubber or friction material is glued, it's done with an easily removable glue for the same reason - underneath most body friction elements you'll find assembly screws. People who epoxy things down may find out at some future point that they've permanently prevented their camera from being repaired.

To answer your question, yes, it's a known problem based on the handful of reports about it here. It is also a type of problem that is common to the camera industry. Not sure what Panasonic's response is.

The rubber zoom ring on my old 45-200 that i sold to a mate has stretched out of place now, its not the first time i have heard of this on the panny lens range.

Anyone know how to fix it, or does it have to be returned to panny for repair.

Mark.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30657645@N03/

The 14-45 kit lens is a low priced lens that provides decent image quality but it's still a cheap lens.

Build quality looks nice but no manufacturer normally includes a "good" lens as part of a kit.

Manufacturers put the cheapest zoom, for them to build, in their kits.

When it comes to lenses you usually get what you paid for and that's with all manufacturers. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic; doesn't make any difference. Cheap lenses are built cheap.

Loose parts, plastic mounts, and inexpensive glass that usually needs a lot of in camera corrections.

The problem is that currently, Panasonic and Olympus are not making a good lens at the 14-45 or 14-42 focal length. So if you like the 28-90 35mm equivalent lens your stuck with cheap.

The one thing that bothers me about your post is the complaint about Panasonic service. I've read where many people feel the same as you and that's something Panasonic need to correct.

If you pull the rubber about, it will look like that.

It is basically a big rubber band round the lens.

Slip it back in place, and what is the problem? Yes, stretching it like you are doing will make it not fit as good.

The 14-45 is a great lens for a great price. Stop picking at / on it and go shoot some pictures!

Ed B said:

The 14-45 kit lens is a low priced lens that provides decent image quality but it's still a cheap lens.

... inexpensive glass that usually needs a lot of in camera corrections.

The problem is that currently, Panasonic and Olympus are not making a good lens at the 14-45 or 14-42 focal length. So if you like the 28-90 35mm equivalent lens your stuck with cheap.

Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake.

The glass is fine. The corrections are for barrel and chromatic distortion which is nothing to do with the glass quality. Digital corrections are part of the system design to enable very good quality pictures to be taken with small, well designed lenses. Correcting barrel and chromatic distortion optically involves compromise, weight, and cost, and does not produce as good results unless you want to spend a lot more money on one lens.

Let's screw our heads on here and see the system for what it is, not what it should be in some fairytale anally retentive perfectionist universe.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/

My edit function doesn't seem to be working.

nikclick said:

The glass is fine. The corrections are for barrel and chromatic distortion which is nothing to do with the glass quality. Digital corrections are part of the system design to enable very good quality pictures to be taken with small, well designed lenses. Correcting barrel and chromatic distortion optically involves compromise, weight, and cost, and does not produce as good results unless you want to spend a lot more money on one lens.

Let's screw our heads on here and see the system for what it is, not what it should be in some fairytale anally retentive perfectionist universe.

Click to expand...

Yep, the glass is fine. That build quality is quite unacceptable though. I have a whole bunch of 30+ years old lenses sitting in my closet and none of them has a focusing ring peeling off. Lugs or rubber rings staying in place on a nearly new product is a basic expectation not only in a "fairy tale perfectionists universe", but in this world too. At least I hope so.

While problems are indeed possible with any mass produced product, the fact that for example there are two threads on the front page of the forum both with several respondents who have the exact same issue would certainly make me question the quality control of this lens.

Back then cameras were not built around digitize circuitry that is predestined to become obsolete in 3 years or so.

--
Jonathan

fermy said:

Yep, the glass is fine. That build quality is quite unacceptable though. I have a whole bunch of 30+ years old lenses sitting in my closet and none of them has a focusing ring peeling off.

Click to expand...

Pray tell, how many of those 30 year old lenses (or even 20 year old lenses) have soft rubber rings on the focus and zoom? I've got a reasonable selection of Nikkors, and the answer is, not a single one of them. Your point?

If you are going to go take your business to a manufacturer who doesn't have these kinds of problems with soft rubber... you'll be giving up photography.

I had the same with my 14-140mm lens during a three weeks trip in Eastern Turkey. It was hot and probably a lot sweat affected the rubber. So, yes, it happens.

I left the lens at the dealer, I bought it more than a year ago, and it got fixrd within 5 working days under warranty - perfect service!

Kind regards

--
Thomas

Ednaz said:

fermy wrote:

Pray tell, how many of those 30 year old lenses (or even 20 year old lenses) have soft rubber rings on the focus and zoom? I've got a reasonable selection of Nikkors, and the answer is, not a single one of them. Your point?

Click to expand...

I could care less what kind of material Panasonic uses for grip on its lenses. I am interested in the end result. So if Panasonic grip can not stay on the barrel, they really should change the rubber to the one that works, not me adjusting my expectations. The point is that if every single 30 year old lens has a grip intact, then it can't be too hard to make one that works more than 3 month.

Btw, my Pany 20mm works fine, just as Zuiko 14-42 and 40-150. So that's not just older lenses that can stay in shape for some time.

If you are fine with your lenses shedding rubber and your camera lugs self-unscrewing, sure go ahead and buy them. I, on the other hand, think that such cases should be widely publicized and users should give hell to Pany for selling an effectively defective products. Otherwise they indeed can get an idea that their customers are happy with any junk.

Was a little surprised when the rub grip started coming lose on my 14-140 lens, especially considering how expensive a lens that is.. But I can't tell you how many issues I've had with my Canon's over the years. I won't ever buy another Canon P&S and my 1DsIII has been in a couple of times.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3

If it slips back in place andn stays there then just leave it alone. If it moves, you can send it back but I always just fix it myself. From the picture. it looks like you can easily pull the rubber out about 3/4 inch. Thats enouth to get a cotton swab dipped lightly with rubber cement to the center and swab the circumfrence. Leave it over night and the problem is solved.

Fran

This is one of the reasons I went with the Oly M. Zuiko 9-18mm versus the Panny 7-14mm.

My 14-45 has had the same loosening of the rubber zoom grip. It has also developed a strong vignette in the extreme corners at the long end:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34879583

Not only all of that, but the zoom action has lost all smoothness it once had, and is now very tight and jerky. All of these things within a year of normal use.

I liked using this lens at first and I still do sometimes, but because of these issues it's not as fun to shoot with- and I'm stuck with odd vignetting in a lot of pictures. I purchased the lens second hand from someone splitting a body/lens kit, so I don't think Panasonic would be willing to help me out.

I have the 25mm Panaleica and the 7-14. Not exactly cheap lenses. The build quality is good, they both look anew, after one year of daily usage

tomasl77 said:

I have the 25mm Panaleica and the 7-14. Not exactly cheap lenses. The build quality is good, they both look anew, after one year of daily usage

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that they are exceptional lenses. However, I don't like to take chances- especially after first-hand experience and many other user accounts of the rubber ring problem.

As a college student, when I spend $700+ on something, it better be good for years and then resell-able. So far the 9-18 has not disappointed.