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

[alan_wilder1]

<p>Maybe it's been mentioned before but a nice alternative would be a 24/2.8 prime and a 35-70/2.8 AFD. Both are outstanding optics even wide open and can be had relatively cheap (especially if the 24 is the Ai-S version which I picked up LN for about $120). The 24-70/2.8 is as large as these two lenses stacked end to end so other than the convenience of one lens for rapid shooting, FL's between 24-35 and CPU benefit, the two lens option appears more attractive to me. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I agree with Dan; The vignetting on the 24-70 less than what is typical for a 24mm lens; certainly less than any of the 24-25mm primes I've used. Only a couple of lenses are able to provide a more evenly illuminated image than the 24-70 at 24mm (the 14-24 is one of them but it doesn't have the PJ appeal of the 24-70). The 24-70 also has slightly uneven illumination at 50mm f/2.8 and some other settings while pretty much all the 50mm primes are sharper at f/2.8 and at the same time void of vignetting (why use 50/1.4? This is one reason, size and speed being others). Overall the 24-70 is an exceptionally good lens while it has some "glitches" like uneven sharpness at 24mm at long distances, field curvature etc. I am very pleased with mine because in practical use it yields consistently excellent results.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I don't understand all this . . . . . . Why don't we producing beautiful photographs, . . . . instead . . . . checking out the last millimeter in the corner of the image, and complaining it is not sharp? . . . . or some other staff. A god photographer never complaining for the tolls, he/she is using, just producing beautiful images. Learn you tool and show me some nice images, not enlargement of the last millimeter of the corner of some nothing image. Talk to me about ART, Composition, the message the image has to tell, and etc. You don't even has to know, what is CA means it you have talent, know art, composition, etc. Show me a god image, and I don't care if you did it with a 50 dollar plastic lens and the corner is not sharp. But if you have an image with a 2000+ dollar lens and a 12000 dollar camera, and the image is nothing, your image is still a junk for me.</p>

<p>Have a wonderful day.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Bela, all I really wanted to know were users experiences in purchasing this particular $1700 lens. There have been reports of defective craftmanship (sticking zoom rings, metal shards inside the lens, etc.) and I was just curious how many people have had similar problems with this or how many people had an overall good experience. Only a few people have had issues and posted what issues they came across that they found important to them. From the looks of things most people don't seem to have a problem with these issues.</p>

[hawkman]

<p><em>... and some other settings while pretty much all the 50mm primes are sharper at f/2.8 and ...</em><br>

Interesting Ilkka, I tested 24-70 against 50 f/1.8D and the zoom was sharper at 50mm and all apertures, here is an example of 24-70 @ 50 and f/2.8, for me it doubles as a prime too.<br>

<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/photonet/DSC_1703_0051.jpg">http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/photonet/DSC_1703_0051.jpg</a><br>

Maybe you do have a bad copy after all ;) lol</p>

 

[michael_oxford]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand all this . . . . . . Why don't we producing beautiful photographs, . . . . instead . . . . checking out the last millimeter in the corner of the image, and complaining it is not sharp?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ummm.. he's about to drop $1700USD on a camera lens. I think he's entitled to understand what he's getting himself into. Not to mention a lot of us have fun comparing equipment.... I do anyway... And to that end, if you don't have fun doing it, why do it at all?</p>

<p>Arash I'm amazed by the sharpness of that photograph. Interesting subject too... What is that dish used for?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Talk to me about ART, Composition, the message the image has to tell, and etc. You don't even has to know, what is CA means it you have talent, know art, composition, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bela, these are important ideas. We would all do well to remember to keep technical specs in perspective (no pun intended). Photography is a technological art form, but it is first and foremost an art form. No one in the past had the technology that we enjoy today, yet they managed to make plenty of stunning images.</p>

<p> </p>

[hawkman]

<p>Mike,<br>

The dish was originally a radio telescope in the 60s and then used by NASA for transmitting signals to Voyager spacecraft at the edge of the solar system, it is one of the most powerful antennas ever made. Nowadays it is inactive and just a landmark for people who are interested in testing the sharpness of their lenses!</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>Arash,<br>

I was thinking radio telescope, but then figured that it couldn't be because they would never let you near that thing with any sort of electronic device because of interference and whatnot... so knowing that it is not in use anymore makes sense. Very Cool!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> Maybe you do have a bad copy after all</em></p>

<p>I don't much believe in these mythical bad copies. What I do believe is that people use their lenses in different situations and many don't know how to properly test their lenses and interpret the results, which leads to different impressions of the quality of the lenses tested. It often turns out that changing the distance to the subject, and the aperture, or looking at center vs. edge changes the rankings. There usually isn't any one design which is best for everything.</p>

<p>As for the 50/1.8, what was the distance to subject in your comparison with the 24-70? My testing is typically at 2m distance and the 50/1.8 typically performs well at close distances but the image is a bit messy near infinity. I would not be surprised if your 24-70 vs 50/1.8 test was at long distances, but at short distances it doesn't match my experience. The Nikon 50mm 1.4's are typically better than the 1.8 at long distances or at wide apertures but the 1.8 is better in the near distances stopped down. At f/2.8 & 2m distance the difference is subtle, but in favour of the 1.4's. I'd be surprised if the 24-70 fit between the 1.4 and 1.8 in this situation.</p>

<p><em>f 24-70 @ 50 and f/2.8, for me it doubles as a prime too.</em></p>

<p>Does your 24-70 shrink to the size of a 50/2.8 prime also? If it does, then I really must have a bad sample as <br /> my 24-70 is very large at 50mm too.</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>One more time. . . . I know two type of photographers, one; whom study, learn all information available on internet, bragging with the university education they get on photography, checking equipments, most of the time expensive equipments and finding fault in everything, . . . but . . . . never have a decent portfolio, And a second type, whom just producing wonderful portfolios and never complain of they tools. Your images hanging on the exhibition/gallery walls and be charged by the content, the artistic value! Not the damn last millimeter of the corner! One of my hobbies lately, buying very old lenses (25, 50, max 100 dollar or getting them free) and going out to take photographs with them, photographs of the same subject, composition, etc., as with the expensive lenses I own. But this is an other subject. . . . Ilkka is right! 50/1.8 vs 24-70/2.8 etc., etc! . . . It is depend on, what do you want to achieve, and you has to know your equipment. You have to know your talent as an artist, because photography is an art form, I always thought in PN. It is not a scientific paper or such. High school, university not helping you creating beautiful photographs and I don't give a s... how many diploma you have if you not producing any good images. Peoples would be better of if they spend more time in art galleries and study masters of art, not lens technical charts. You would be a better photographer if you study your cameras and lenses in real photographic situation, and try to create something. I always check out peoples portfolio, whom making such statement, etc., and most of the time I am not surprised. Beginners, amateurs expecting superior images from they, some time very expensive equipment, but the superior image comes from your mind, talent to see things, to communicate a feeling or anything with your image. You can create a beautiful image with a HOLGA and a p.. of s... with a 10,000.00 dollar Nikon D3X, the best and most expensive lens on it.</p>

<p>Sorry for my incorrect English grammar.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Bela, I get it, there's a lot of ruler shooters out there. But as Michael just said, if one is about to invest $1700+ in optics, why not be careful and diligent? And perhaps the only thing sillier than people overanalyzing technical details on forums like this is one who types up long lectures to criticize and expose them. Your Holga line is really getting kinda cliche these days, we've heard it so many times. You have to accept the world of photography is now filled with all kinds and levels of shooters and if PN only allowed discussions of art amongst the elite, and banned all technical discussions and silly questions from newbies or members with absent or amateur portfolios, I suspect it's membership wouldn't even be 10% of what it is today. Respectfully, I agree with most of what you are saying, and you are obviously an amazing photographer looking at your portfolio, but I think you're on a bit of a soapbox here. I personally am interested in this thread, and maybe so are others, so let it continue please.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>I believe that the current Nikon high-grade zooms are actually optimized for closer distance and they all have some field curvature, the 24-70 is a good example and in my experience performs better in closer distance than infinity which makes it perfect for interior shots like this that is taken at 24mm and f/2.8 <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/DSC_0019.jpg">http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/DSC_0019.jpg</a><br />The test vs 50 was from a test chart at about 3 yards, the 50 had softer corners.<br>

Also size is not issue for me, build quality and AF speed is.</p>

<p> </p>

[hawkman]

<p>Also take a look at SLRgear results for 50 f/1.8D vs 24-70 f/2.8 on FX<br>

50 f/1.8D<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon50f18/ff/tloader.htm">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon50f18/ff/tloader.htm</a><br>

24-70 f/2.8<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-70f28/ff/tloader.htm">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-70f28/ff/tloader.htm</a></p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't much believe in these mythical bad copies. What I do believe is that people use their lenses in different situations and many don't know how to properly test their lenses and interpret the results, which leads to different impressions of the quality of the lenses tested.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. We're not talking about apples (some ripe and some rotten) or hand-crafted artifacts that vary from copy to copy. We're talking about something that's designed on powerful computers, assembled by sophisticated robots to exacting tolerances, and tested rigorously before it goes into the box.</p>

<p>One quote that I keep seeing online is, "I sent it back to Nikon, but they said there was nothing wrong with it." Which leads me to believe that (drum roll, please) there was NOTHING WRONG with it.</p>

<p>If anything, I blame the inaccuracy and idiosyncracies of auto focus for a lot of these "bad lens copy" conclusions. We assume that auto focus is infallible, but it's not. I test with one chart and my AF is all off. Then I test with another chart, and it's right on the money. Why? Because the AF made some judgment as to were to focus that wasn't apparent from looking at the chart and the placement of the AF sensors. For lens OPTICS tests, it might be better to focus manually with Live Mode, then switch over to Mirror Lockup for the exposure. That takes the AF gremlin out of the equation.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I know two type of photographers, one; whom study, learn all information available on internet, bragging with the university education they get on photography, checking equipments, most of the time expensive equipments and finding fault in everything, . . . but . . . . never have a decent portfolio, And a second type, whom just producing wonderful portfolios and never complain of they tools.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to confess that I've noticed the same pattern. Home pages with a lot of tech talk usually don't have nice galleries (if any), and vice versa. I'm not going to attempt to draw any conclusions. Just noting that the phenomenon that Bela mentions sounds familiar.</p>

 

[hawkman]

<p><em>computers, assembled by sophisticated robots to exacting tolerances, and tested rigorously before it goes into the box.</em><br>

Nikon 24-70 is manufactured in Nikon Sendai facility in Japan and most of it is assembled by hand, you can some interesting photos from inside the factory here <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9113">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9113</a><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>usually don't have nice galleries (if any), and vice versa</em><br>

Also, why don't you have a gallery or a portfolio or even a single photo here on PN? Don't you think it is fair to upload some of your nice photos before complaining about weak portfolios of others. Also Bela's comments are quite irrelevant to this thread, she was not able to comprehend what the whole point of the discussion was.</p>

[chris_keyworth]

<p >I bought the 24-70 last Christmas and have been delighted with it on my D300. I have never had any cause to doubt it to be other than what it is, an excellent lens. Reading the posts here I decided to do some tests for my own satisfaction and found no roughness at any point when zooming. There are no front or back focus issues and the lens is sharp. My rudimentary tests confirmed what I already knew, I have an excellent lens.</p>

<p >All the Nikon products including leads I have purchased are well made, actually very much better made than lower priced alternatives I have bought from time to time. Of course you pay a premium when you buy Nikon, but that reflects their reputation. </p>

<p >I have had a problem when a D200 I have did not focus on a couple of occasions, but that seems to have passed, so it probably was not a fault with the camera as such possibly dirty contacts somewhere.</p>

<p >Obviously any product can become faulty, or there is an error in manufacturing which is not picked up, but I doubt it is the norm for Nikon. Unfortunately things get exaggerated in forums, references to support the point can be erroneous and in fact one of the four links the OP cited related to a Canon lens which does not help to present a clear picture of the alleged problem.</p>

<p >If you become aware of a problem with a Nikon product and of course there will be failures in any sophisticated product you have to resolve it, but I do not think anyone should, as a matter of course go looking for problems or think they have bought a trashy product which is going to fail after reading scare stories like this.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, why don't you have a gallery or a portfolio or even a single photo here on PN? Don't you think it is fair to upload some of your nice photos before complaining about weak portfolios of others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Er, because I have a website...</p>

[ted_holm]

<p >I very confuse. I was really leaning towards buying this lens; the only thing holding me back was the price tag. This was going to be my walk around lens, on my D700. Now I am very worried that I will not be “happy” with the lens due to some problems that come with the lens. I cannot understand how Nikon could charge this much for a lens that not perfect. I see the lens is on backorder in B+H, hoping that they are addressing some of the lens issues.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now I am not sure what lens to buy…</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ted, the only "problem" with this lens is that it is very popular.</p>

<p>If you read this entire thread again, you'll realize that there is exactly one person who has a lot of negative personal experience with this lens. Additionally, there is this recent thread when somebody else got one with a stuck aperture diaphragm: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00TxM7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TxM7</a> Otherwise, all first-hand experience with this lens is quite positive.</p>

<p><br />As I pointed our earlier, I have opened four different new-in-the-box samples, and none has any problems. If you find my experience insufficient, when a well known Nikon expert such as Bjorn Rorslett points out that 7 out of 7 samples he tested are fine, it should give you a lot of confidence with this lens.</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>Ted, the reason why I started this thread was because I wanted to get feed back from others about their experiences with this particular lens and since I could only find mostly negative reviews on other sites, I started this post. A lot of Nikon gear seems to be back ordered, they must be ramping down production or something. For the most part, most people here like Shun said have had no problems what-so-ever, and hearing that a majority of people have found this lens a wonderful piece of glass it has encouraged me to take the plunge as soon as they come back into stock. If you so happen to get a bad copy which I hope you don't it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to get it exchanged. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of Nikon gear seems to be back ordered, they must be ramping down production or something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt that Nikon is doing that. The link Arash provided to Rob Galbraith's site, with photos of the Sendai production facility, shows a typical low to moderate volume custom production facility. I saw many similar production facilities here in N. Central Texas where I live when I worked as a government safety inspector. This included manufacturers of custom electronics, industrial strength laundry machines for commercial launderers, hospitals and other facilities, These types of facilities tend to operate on a "just in time" basis, with minimal inventory and a goal of zero overstock. They base their production on a compromise between direct orders and anticipated orders. The latter is tricky because estimates can fluctuate radically - sometimes even daily - based on market indicators.</p>

<p>Items like the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor are essentially custom products, the flagship type of prestige models many manufacturers offer to round out their lineup of mass produced consumer goods and utilitarian tools for professionals and serious amateurs. You'll find equivalents in almost every hobbyist type pursuit, whether horse tack and saddle makers (I'll bet Lil Judd and Matt Laur can confirm this - I've only inspected a few such specialty makers), makers of fine boots, custom crafted rifles and handguns, or the fine arts materials industries with limited occasional runs of certain products. Waits of several weeks or months, even a year or two, are not at all unusual for some custom products.</p>

[ted_holm]

<p>Thanks for your comments. I am going to order this lens. I will get on the back order list and let you know what I think when it comes in.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I must have received one of the first ones in the UK in November 2007 and by the end of December it had fallen apart on me. Nikon said it was a blow that damaged a lens mount screw but, aside from that incident, it is a splendid lens that performs very well across its range. In contrast to Sheun's experience my copy only vignettes to a small degree (on FX of course) that is easily correctable.<br>

Thoroughly recommendable.</p>