Quick Poll Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 (Good/Defective)

[mizuho_saito]

<b><i>Moderator's note: This is not a survey or a poll. Any opinions expressed in this discussion should not be interpreted to represent any statistically significant data. Otherwise, have fun. -- LJ</i></b><p>

<hr>

<p>I've been recently reading about all the "defective" Nikon 24-70's out there, but I was curious how many good copies are out there. If you have a 24-70 could you post approx how long, if it's a "good/defective" unit, and maybe the first 3 serial number digits if you feel like it.</p>

[davey h]

<p>Had mine for about 6 months and all ok so. I havent had any problems with the lens but a few with the D700. Serial no. starts with 307.</p>

[Rob Davies]

<p>Had mine for about 16 months, no problems at all.<br>

Has to be the sharpest standard zoom I have ever owned!<br>

Serial no starts: 217</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>Okay, Saito-san. Define "defective" - any thread link? Thanks. I have had mine for a few months but I don't have S/N with me now.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>Mine seems OK(I like my ZF primes much more) at S/N:277xxx, purchased 01/2009.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Well it's been reported around the internet that some people have had back/front focus issues, zoom ring getting stuck/grinding and such.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_24_70/discuss/72157615300077438/<br>

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32087958<br>

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=127172<br>

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68189<br>

And there is another link which I can't seem to find at the moment.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>I guess you could define defective as having to bring the lens in for an exchange/repair for other reasons besides damage caused by the user.<br>

Sorry for the double post.<br /> http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=760033&page=4<br /> post #46 said they went through 5 copies of the lens to find a sharp one. He may be nitpicking, but I'm just curious on how many people here have had "good" lenses verses those who have had problems, even if they are/were minor problems. $1,700+ is a lot to spend on a lens, and I would expect if you spend such amount the workmanship and quailty control would be very high.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>This isn't a poll or survey. Discussion forums never work that way. Before the end of the week - possibly the end of today - this will digress into lengthy informed comments from actual owners, opinions from folks who don't even own the lens and rants about every complaint anyone has ever had about Nikon.</p>

<p>Discussion forum threads that start out with a flawed premise never contribute to a body of knowledge. They only serve to raise the Google prominence of disinformation. So the next time this topic comes up, this thread on photo.net will be cited as a definitive source "proving" whatever point someone wants to make.</p>

<p>If you want to conduct a poll or survey there are other sites better suited to this purpose. You can sometimes attach the utility to your own blog for polling purposes. Photo.net's software doesn't accommodate those types of survey/poll utilities.</p>

<p>Sorry to be the wet blanket, but folks need to keep some perspective on these types of discussions. Otherwise, have fun storming the castle.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Lex, is there any way the title? I basically wanted to see what owners thought about their 24-70's and if there is a relationship to serial number and quailty of the lenses, since there have been threads around of people complaining about inconsistencies with this particular lens. I also wanted to see if there is in fact a vast majority of people who have had no problems what so ever which is what I'm hoping to find out.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Eh, the title is okay. Just as long as it's clear to folks years from now that this doesn't represent statistically significant survey data. If nobody read photo.net I wouldn't care one way or another. But photo.net's Google ranking is extremely high. Anything written here gets picked up within 24 hours, sometimes much sooner (this thread has already been picked up). Over the past decades I've seen a lot of stuff written on photo.net picked up years later and quoted out of context.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Here's another example of why I tend to be skeptical of polls and surveys conducted within the context of a discussion forum.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Plus, if you're a 'bokeh addict', you should skip crop cameras altogether. It reduces the image frame cropping your 'bokeh'." -- <em><a href="http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=760033&page=4">Excerpt from the redflagdeals discussion forum</a> .</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I read drivel like that, I'm immediately skeptical of anything else written on that thread, possibly on that entire forum, including opinions about the reliability of a particular bit of equipment. I'm doubtful about whether they actually understand how to evaluate a lens for performance.</p>

 

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Okay, thanks for the heads up! =D</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Oh if I could also ask where people bought their 24-70s from too. It could be possible the package could have been dropped in shipping, of course there is no way to tell if this is true or not. But maybe buying from a local store tends to lead to a more consistant result in the quaily of the lens.</p>

[trevans]

<p>You might also inquire at places that use a lot of them... like lens rental places (I mention this because I rented this lens from, of all places, LensRentals.com) because I know many of them keep statistics on repairs and will at least have informed opinions on several samples of the same lens.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Thanks for the tip Tim, I'll look into that.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>First, I can only tell about my own experience with this lens, I have tested 5 copies of this lens, three were purchased brand new, one was a rental copy and one was a friend's lens.<br>

Out of the five lenses, one lens had a stiffness in the zoom ring between 50mm and MM, it was not impossible to use but it was noticeably stiffer than the other 4 and also the AF operation was noisier.<br>

Out of the five lenses, two (purchased new) had noticeably non-uniform sharpness at MM and f/8 aperture, the other three were good.<br>

The current lens that I own (purchased new) has good optical performance, perhaps the best of all the five, however the metal ring that is placed around the front element is loose on mine and was coming off one time, I am not going to return this lens because most likely the replacement will be worse, but I will send to Nikon if the ring comes off again and I strongly believe that Nikon should improve their QC for such expensive product, current level of OX is unaccessible IMO.</p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>This example shows the variation in sharpness between two copies of this lens, needless to say this test was on tripod 1/2000 sec and every shot was repeated three times, the best shot was taken for each sample to compensate for any potential error in focus.<br>

This is a100% crop from an area to the right of the center.</p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>Mizuho San,<br />There was no correlation between serial number and the performance, these differences are natural due to tolerances in manufacturing and calibration and thus uncorrelated to serial number, vendor etc. , however I believe either the tolerance has to be tightened up or the QC has to be more rigorous narrowing the performance variation window.<br />Also MM above stands for 70mm, OX for QC (quality control) , there was a formating problem.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Thank you so much Arash for the detailed information. I'm debating if I should order from B&H with extended warrenty or if I should buy from a local shop, which I can most likely check out more than one variation hopefully, but it would cost me maybe 150 more depending if they price match or not.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>I wouldn't have thought even the thickest and most biased reader years from now could construe any meandering thread here on PNet as representing 'statistically significant survey data'. There's just too much opining to be confused with hard data.<br>

All we say here is subjective and anecdotal.<br />Any person who took the material here as 'gospel' couldn't be helped whatever.</p>

<p>To Lex ...<br />I read a thread earlier today discussing, for the purposes of critique, including other people's photos in a contribution as opposed to linking to it. The case was made for linking being safer (less litigious) and less fuss for the site. Is this (the one we're in now) reservation about threads being misread/mis-represented as a survey in the same area of moderator concern?<br />I only ask as until today I hadn't realised that PNet is a business and not an information service just for me :) and as such has to be careful what it does and is responsible for.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Mizuho,<br>

I always buy from B&H and I recommend you buy from them too, with B&H you can always return the lens for exchange or refund if it does not meet your requirements. It is very easy and when you return a defective product they pay for shipping both ways. Some local stores have strange return policies and will not accept a return for minor imperfections such as these. It is also hard to do controlled tests inside a store.<br>

Also if you buy the US version it will come with 5 years of warranty so there is no need for extended warranty unless you want insurance against accidental drop, corrosion etc.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_walker11]

<p>well after some heavy rain in panama (and the moisture) the zoom rubber thingie lost its grip. some super glue and it was all perfect again.<br>

a strong hit from a guy (unintentionally) in hongkong dislocated the front part of the lens making it impossible to zoom as the extending tube was grinding on the front part. another hit (intentionally by myself) fixed the problem.</p>

<p>I'd say the 24-70 is pretty solid</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For whatever reason, Arash Hazeghi seems to be a huge magnet for defective equipment. If I remember correctly, he owns two D700 bodies (purchased as different times), and both were exchanged. The same for a Canon 5D Mark II he bought.</p>

<p>Fortunately, I have much better luck with the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I have opened four different samples, all new in a box. All four are fine but all have the serious vignetting issue at 24mm/f2.8; that is simply a "feature" for this lens. None of those lenses is mine though.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Cherry picking of expensive lenses is an old practice. I'd certainly test any expensive lens I planned to buy. One reason I prefer to buy used lenses locally is so I can test 'em in the shop before buying. In ye olden dayes I'd shoot a roll, have the shop's minilab develop the film or take it to a nearby lab and then decide. With digital it's easier to evaluate on the spot. Some shops will even let you use their computer to pixel peep from your test photos.</p>

<p>If the online retailer doesn't mind you doing this and can accommodate exchanges, I guess you might as well take advantage of it. But be sure you understand how to not only test lenses but how to evaluate the results. Over the years I've seen a few examples of people trying to evaluate results without understanding even the basics of how to use digital photo files, so they jump to erroneous conclusions about lenses.</p>

[matters410]

<p>GOOD (dare I say, great?). I use my 24-70 on a D300 so I can't speak to any distortion or vignetting that might be seen on full frame but I can tell you I have not had back/front focusing issues and my images (not "tested" but in practice) have been consistantly very sharp, and nothing is loose. I have had it 8 months and used it frequently.</p>