Not satisfied with the Nikon 24-70 2.8?

insanefred · April 12, 2009

Or am I way too picky?

I got the Nikon 24-70 2.8 recently.

First copy had a nick in the front element out of the box and shards of metal in between the elements.
Second copy was really soft on the right side with the infamous zoom grind.
third copy (what I currently have now) doesn't seem as good as a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at the same focal length and aperture. It isn't as sharp not nearly as good as any of my prime lenses. the focus seems inaccurate too.
I also feel the this lens now has a bad omen from going through 2 bad copies already.
Though this lens seems great otherwise, I am not sure if I can justify $1800 for something that I am not 100% satisfied with.

My question is am I being picky or insane? Should I try to keep it or return it? I have till Wednesday.

If I do return it, I'll likely replace it with the 18-70 3.5-4.5, a tripod and 2 sb-600's, PMP and a few other things. Maybe a much nicer monitor.

ziggy53 · April 12, 2009

The Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G AF-S ED is one of Nikon's finest zoom lenses and if think it poorer than the Nikkor 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED then you have another bad copy or you are using it incorrectly. If we could see some examples of what you find objectionable, especially sample images with full EXIF, we might be able to help.

I do like the Nikkor 18-70mm, f3.5-4.5G AF-S DX IF-ED, my father has a copy of that zoom, but it is not in the same league as the professional quality 24-70mm, f/2.8G.

Qarik · April 12, 2009

you are having some bad luck. 1st of all please post some shots where you think the focus is bad and give the details on the shot.

That lens, as ziggy points out, one of the finest if not the finest zoom lens nikon has ever created.

Daniel

Mitchell · April 12, 2009

It's the best lens I own. Just a stretch of bad luck on your part.

That lens rarely leaves my camera for event shooting or portraits.

insanefred · April 13, 2009

Idea one:

Since I will be sending my camera in for some repair, I could send the lens to be adjusted and re-calibrated.

does that sound like an good idea?

pro: with this is, I won't have to deal with the return, and it would be adjusted correctly by hand.

con: I won't be able to return it at all, even if I don't like even after it get's repaired. Which is not likely. My first copy was AWESOME except for the scratch!

Idea two: return it to the original store and just buy it from somewhere else?

I will try to have some pics up soon.

insanefred · April 13, 2009

here is a couple of photos
24-70 vs 18-55

the first one is the 24-70, the second is the 18-55 third is the nikon 35-105mm 3.5-4.5D

both are at 55mm at F/5.6, tripod, shutter released via remote.
sharpening set to 2
contrast: 0
brightness: -1
sat: 0

I did make the 18-55mm a +1/3 EX comp. just to make sure they have about the same overall brightness.

As you can see (the first pic), the upper left hand corner is REALLY bad, the upper right and central side being only ok. The bottom left being somewhat mediocre, but the bottom right is still good. whereas the 18-55, is somewhat soft in all four corners, but acceptable overall, and no obvious sign of decentering.
I also want to note the me second copy was MUCH worse than this.

Other thoughts:
The copy I have now also has some erratic AF, needs +20 or more for AF-C and +11 for AF-S. Weird, huh?
doesn't the d300 use the "sweet spot" and should reveal a little less decentering, especially when a 2 whole stops down?!

cjmchch · April 13, 2009

If all three lenses are from the same store then there is a great chance that these lenses have been damaged in shipping/warehouse (dropped box perhaps). After 3 lenses I would be asking for interjection from the lens manufacturer rather than the store owner. Any replacement should come from a different batch to those in the shop.

History dictates that this lens is a good lens and your problem is worth waiting for a fix rather than taking a lesser lens in replacement. You'll forever regret that.

insanefred · April 13, 2009

I added a 50mm 1.8D at 5.6. It's the fourth one.

ziggy53 · April 13, 2009

I suspect that part of the problem may be the distance to subject. Zoom lenses do not do their best at minimum focus distance (MFD) or therebouts. When testing zooms I test at 2x MFD through infinity for critical focus. I may also test at MFD but I do not judge a lens for its performance at that range.

Try a test at around 2 1/2 feet which is twice MFD for the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G AF-S ED. Unless you intend to use the lens at this close distance you really should test and judge the lens at distances more appropriate to normal use of the lens.

insanefred · April 13, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I suspect that part of the problem may be the distance to subject. Zoom lenses do not do their best at minimum focus distance (MFD) or therebouts. When testing zooms I test at 2x MFD through infinity for critical focus. I may also test at MFD but I do not judge a lens for its performance at that range.

Try a test at around 2 1/2 feet which is twice MFD for the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G AF-S ED. Unless you intend to use the lens at this close distance you really should test and judge the lens at distances more appropriate to normal use of the lens.

I tested about 3' feet away. I totally agree with you, and the pics I posted is what I got.

ziggy53 · April 13, 2009

insanefred wrote:

I tested about 3' feet away. I totally agree with you, and the pics I posted is what I got.

Then it would appear that you have a bad copy of the lens. I would return it and I would contact Nikon to let them know of your problems. Be sure to keep the sample images in case Nikon should want to see them. It would appear that something has happened to this lot of lenses. Do get a copy of the serial numbers for the last lens to reference just in case they ask for the serial numbers.

loutra · November 14, 2009

Sorry for joining so late the thread, but I have the same problem!
Since now, I've changed two nikkor 24-70: both of them have the left side softer than the right side (keeping the camera vertically).
Here is a sample from my first lens:

and here a sample from my second lens:

Each sample is made by the left and right side cropped and joined together.

now I'm waiting for a third copy...

insanefred wrote:

Or am I way too picky?

I got the Nikon 24-70 2.8 recently.

First copy had a nick in the front element out of the box and shards of metal in between the elements.
Second copy was really soft on the right side with the infamous zoom grind.
third copy (what I currently have now) doesn't seem as good as a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at the same focal length and aperture. It isn't as sharp not nearly as good as any of my prime lenses. the focus seems inaccurate too.
I also feel the this lens now has a bad omen from going through 2 bad copies already.
Though this lens seems great otherwise, I am not sure if I can justify $1800 for something that I am not 100% satisfied with.

My question is am I being picky or insane? Should I try to keep it or return it? I have till Wednesday.

If I do return it, I'll likely replace it with the 18-70 3.5-4.5, a tripod and 2 sb-600's, PMP and a few other things. Maybe a much nicer monitor.

insanefred · November 14, 2009

did you make sure you used the same aperture and focal length?

I waited a few months after my third copy. Got a fourth at another reseller, and got a good copy, if not a excellent copy.

I guess there is some bad copies out there for sure and not just me.

My advice is to return it. Wait a week or more and possibly go through with a different retailer Also write down the S/N.

kdog · November 14, 2009

insanefred wrote:

I waited a few months after my third copy. Got a fourth at another reseller, and got a good copy, if not a excellent copy.
I guess there is some bad copies out there for sure and not just me.

I'll bet the first reseller just puts the returned bad copies right back into inventory again. Who was it?

loutra · November 14, 2009

insanefred wrote:

did you make sure you used the same aperture and focal length?

I waited a few months after my third copy. Got a fourth at another reseller, and got a good copy, if not a excellent copy.
I guess there is some bad copies out there for sure and not just me.

My advice is to return it. Wait a week or more and possibly go through with a different retailer Also write down the S/N.

Yes, same aperture (f/2.8) and focal length (24mm) for both shots :cry
It's unbelievable for me that Nikon is so poor on the quality control of its professional nikkor...

insanefred · November 14, 2009

loutra wrote:

Yes, same aperture (f/2.8) and focal length (24mm) for both shots :cry
It's unbelievable for me that Nikon is so poor on the quality control of its professional nikkor...

FWIW, some claim other brands are far worse.

2.8 zoom lenses just seem to be harder to get right.

I mean look at sigma, tamron and the horror stories, a lot of canon variants have far worse problems whether or not the person admits it.

Sorry that you are going through with this, believe me, I know. :cry
Fortunately it's actually a worthwhile lens.

loutra · November 14, 2009

insanefred wrote:

FWIW, some claim other brands are far worse.

2.8 zoom lenses just seem to be harder to get right.

I mean look at sigma, tamron and the horror stories, a lot of canon variants have far worse problems whether or not the person admits it.

Sorry that you are going through with this, believe me, I know. :cry
Fortunately it's actually a worthwhile lens.

thanks! I hope to have some good luck with the third copy which I should receive next Monday...

Philip Goh · November 14, 2009

And here I was thinking that it was only Canon who had QC issues and that Sigma's lens QC was especially bad.

insanefred · November 15, 2009

Philip Goh wrote:

And here I was thinking that it was only Canon who had QC issues and that Sigma's lens QC was especially bad.

Everyone has bad apples, Nikon has them too. According to a ex-shutterbug employee, Canon has far far worse problems. He said about 2 of 3 canons got returned and 3 out of 8 of Nikons returned both based on defective product.

That's what you get for such a massed produced item.

pathfinder · November 15, 2009

insanefred,

That is an interesting claim regarding Canon lenses, that I suspect is slanderous, unless he can prove his statement with actual verifiable numbers. Slander can be very expensive to the offender.

As owner of at least 2 dozen different Canon lenses from 15mm to 500mm, I have never had to return one for lack of sharpness. I rarely print larger than 24 x 36 inches, so maybe I am just not critical enough, but I doubt it. Are some of my Canon lenses better than others? Certainly, but all are quite capable if used properly and skillfully.

I also own a number of Tamron, Sigma and one nice Zeiss Distagon, so I have others to compare to. I find that if I do my part, the lenses will not usually let me down.

That said, lenses should never be sold with defects on the surface or within the lens elements.... so the OP has a real complaint, that is for certain.

pathfinder · November 15, 2009

kdog wrote:

I'll bet the first reseller just puts the returned bad copies right back into inventory again. Who was it?

Kind of my concern also, Joel. We still have not been told the vendor's name.

ziggy53 · November 15, 2009

I suspect that, on average, Canon and Nikon have a similar return rate for lenses. (I cannot find any authoritative source one way or the other.) There were specific problems relating to specific lenses which may have temporarily skewed the data against Canon, like the 24-105mm lens flare recall (1) and the 70-300mm, IS USM with a vertical orientation issue (2). Note that in both of those occasions users were given remediation.

Hasselblad is about the only manufacturer which I have had contact with which had an inordinately low rate of returns, presumably due to more individual testing and more strict testing than any other manufacturer. (Of course you paid for the privilege in a high purchase price.) I did have a shutter go bad in a Hasselblad lens, but it was easy to justify repairs and the lens is still strong today.

Referenced Service bulletins:

(1) http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924

(2) http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468

loutra · November 17, 2009

Quick update: received my third copy of the nikkor 24-70 f/2.8.
This one seems ok to me, without the problem of the previous two lenses.
I suspect that the packaging and the delivery are big source of the problem I had. However, I have to test better this new nikkor to be sure it's ok...

ziggy53 · November 17, 2009

Good luck.

Not satisfied with the Nikon 24-70 2.8?

Comments