I've experience a reproducible defect in images taken at long exposure using other than minimal or maximum f stops on this lens. The same effect was experienced on multiple 24mm-70mm lenses, on more than one camera. The image has an overexposed area around the top left third portion of the long exposure image. This defect was not experienced on other Nikon lenses (eg. 50mm f1.f and 105mm VR lens( What is this??

Please post an example.

Didn't saved any. It was a course and the instructor's lens.

Well, what were the settings, and how long was the exposure?

With that lens, nothing would surprise me. As I posted here some time ago, my own new example went away after the first proper, realistic test. It didn't produce strange effects, just awful softness at the wider end of both focal length and aperture, defeating the purpose of it as a lens change-saving option for outdoor photography.

Having said that, it was only the second Nikkor in my life that proved poor, the other being a 1.8/85 of many years ago.

Rob C

The only cause I can think of is that the lens is letting a very small amount of light leak in, so small that it does not show up except with really long exposures. You might try wrapping the entire lens barrel with foil or some other light-proof material. Or, completely block the front opening (the lens cap is not enough) and try a long exposure.

Peter
www.peteraitken.com

Well .. I don't own the lens, but always thought it was one of the best; however, now I won't consider it because it is flawed. It only occurs at exposures of 2 minutes or more, and in the middle f stops. Doesn't occur at 24mm or 70mm extremes. Otherwise, the visual defect (overexposure) is very noticeable and can't be fixed in post.

It is one of the best! 2 minute exposures are very unusual, and this problem is irrelevant for 99.9% of photographers who would benefit from the lens's outstanding optical qualities. But, if you need 2 min exposures, it's not for you.

Peter

99.9% seems a bit opptomistic. It cuts out a whole category of fine art print images; specifically, B&W landscape long exposures ala Michael Kenna ( http://www.michaelkenna.net/index2.php?PHP...b9d1b46b331ca5e ), etc., which cater to wide angle. None of the other Nikon lenses exhibit this. I think Nikon should take a look at this, just like they did with the 70mm to 200mm on the D3 / D700 full frame senors.

One guy, who doesn't own the lens and has no images to show, claims some weird effect that occurs only during long exposures, and we should dismiss the lens as a flawed design? Get real.

Not quite so fast: I posted about my own problems with that lens too, and I have owned and earned my living with top-line Nikkors and Nikons since the 1960s. Mine was a friggin' lemon too, and damn expensive to boot.

Shit does happen and at those prices I give no second-chances to the same product.

As Chuck Berry famously said: don't let the same dog bite you twice.

Rob C

That's bad news,as I just bought one.Hopefully mine is not a lemon.
I do find it hard to believe,especially that this lens is rated as the best 27-70 zoom out-there.
Not that I have any desire in doing 2 minute exposures as a test.

We will see,

Cheers,
Willem.

This also occurred to me. It might be also that one of the metal aperture blades is slightly bent or leaking light, so that when it's rotated to a certain position/f-stop, it's causing the light to "leak". Wide open, it's probably obscured by the overall haze that would occur, and at minimum, there's probably enough overlap from other blades to cover the defect.

No. You missed one of the points. It's a design defect, because the exact same flaw was experienced across the same lens across several other people.

Really? Who are these other people that you did not mention earlier, and can we have some proof in the form of an image? Or are we talking about a friend of a friend who met someone while out walking his dog who mentioned that the local village idiot's half brother might once have observed something similar?

The proof available is taking a 2 minute exposure at around 50 mm. You'll need a 10 or 16 stop ND at around f11. Otherwise, I don't have an image and I'm not buying this lens. See ya.

Pardon me,on wich Nikon DSLR was this test done?

My DSLR is a D700, but other models had the same effect. D300, D200.

I will try it with my D3x.Could be an issue with the sensor of the D300 or D200 or D700 ?

Not many sensors like 2 minute exposures.

Cheers,

Willem.

I tried your scenario on my 24-70 on a D300, without an ND filter (sorry, I've never needed a 10 stop ND filter so I don't have one lying around the shop) , at 50mm; one exposure was 2 minutes at F/11, the other test was 4 minutes at F/10. In addition, when I was at Bryce Canyon recently I ran some 8 minute exposures in the middle focal length ranges around F/5.6. In none of these cases did I notice any "overexposure" problem you speak of.

Since you're unable to provide an example, and haven't given us a complete break down of the shooting situation, there's not a lot any of us can really offer. I'm thinking, off the cuff here because of lack of information/example, that if you're using a filter perhaps you've got an issue with the synergy between the lens and filter more than just the lens itself. But without a more concrete example we're, pardon the expression, shooting in the dark here.

To be serious - while I'm not discounting that you saw what you saw, if it is a "design defect", it's not affecting even remotely the same percentage of the lenses ownership as, say, the FF issues with the original 70-200/2.8 VR lens. No lens is perfect, but your scenario, that I can't duplicate, IS pretty rare and I don't think it's going to be a major stumbling block for most purchasers of this lens (which IMO, while having issues at the wide end, is excellent from 28-70mm and competitive with anything out there in that range).


-m

Well ... it has to be done in broad daylight, so an strong ND filter is necessary. You didn't reproduce the scenario.

Hmmm. Sounds more like light leakage at specific points in the zoom mechanism I'd say.

Frankly, that's a pretty rare scenario and I think Nikon has bigger fish to fry than to address that one, but that's just me.

The lens, while fine for 99+ % of the photographers, isn't for you, no problem there. All lenses are compromises.

A little tip for you though - you might want to revisit and evaluate the tone of your replies in your replies to this thread. Typically if you're going to ask a question about a specific scenario, if you can't provide a sample image (and I can understand that's not always possible), at least describe your scenario in detail. In your original post, you made no mention that the shot had to be done with a 10+ stop ND filter in bright daylight, and in your replies to those who challenged you to provide more info, you came off like a jerk. Lots of people here are willing to help, but if you come off like a donkey, well, can't help you much.

-m

Well this is my first post and maybe I should change my handle to the Village Idiot's half brother. I'm not here to flame anyone but I myself have encountered the same problem with this lens. My problems occur usually with the lens set between the focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm during daytime shots with B&W ND 10 & 6 filters attached and exposure times of 2 - 6 minutes. The flaw looks similar to lens flare and was intially pointed out to me by an instructor who taught the technique. Both the instructor and I both had the same camera's (D-3's) and the same len's (24-70mm) and the same problem! I myself complained to Nikon who looked into the problem to never provide me with an explanation after providing photo's, data, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. If I would have known this when I intially purchased the lens I might have chosen the 17-35mm instead. Now I don't want you to feel sorry for me having the 24 - 70mm lens but when you patiently wait for 2 - 7 minute exposures to only have disappointment caused by your equipment it is FRUSTRATING. If you'd like more examples I'd be more than happy to supply them.

Click to view attachment ISO200, Exposure time of 81.2 Sec, f/11 at 45mm

Well,the good news is that if someones want to take super long exposures NOT to use this lens!
I would suggest a prime instead.Just pack a 35 and a 50 for those arty shots.
Thanks for the warning,I'll will try it myself a.s.a.p.
Best,
Willem.

I had considered getting the 24-70 for the wide angle long exposure, but was given a heads up about this problem on a course. The instructor loaned me his 24-70 with the warning about the middle focal lengths, and said the same defect was present in his students lenses. I've since purchased the 20mm f2 for the wind angle and coupled with the 50mm, I have all I need. I won't, however, spend 2k on a lens that doesn't work at all settings. Long exposures are not a misuse of the camera. It's designed to do them.

Well if you had met my half brother, you might think that I quality for the title of village idiot's half brother. But yes, you have demonstrated the problem. Personally I would consider the lens faulty (assuming it is light leakage and not flare) and would demand a refund or repair.

I don't see why this should occur only with an ND filter and a long exposure, since all the filter does is to reduce the intensity of the light through the front element. You should see the same issue without the filter. The only difference is the length of the exposure (same total amount of light), and possibly the way the shutter moves. For short exposures the two blades will traverse the sensor during the exposure, but I don't see how that is relevant. So that suggests that you might have light leakage from the sides of the lens e.g. light enters the housing and bounces around inside. The way to check for that is to repeat the exposure but with the lens cap on. It is also possible you have a leak in the camera, but since you say it only occurs at certain focal lengths, that kind of rules that one out. If the light does not originate from the sides of the lens, then I am baffled (no pun intended, although it is one of my better ones).

You are absolutely right. And I would extend that to cover all the focal lengths included in the particular optic - otherwise, it is misrepresentation. Why should it have become the norm that people accept that the wider end of a zoom might suck but that the middle and longer parts will be okay? If the damn thing doesn't work at the wide, then make it less of a range for the formula to cope with and stop conning people. It is only because buyers are too reluctant to kick ass that manufacturers get away with shoddy treatment, goods and design.

It has been suggested that people buy several copies of the same lens and keep doing so until they find a good one. This strikes me as ludicrous. Also as most impracticable unless you are a marvellous customer in a huge city. I had problems enough getting rid of my 24-70mm zoom, never mind having the guy produce another one that would possibly have had the same passage through life!

And why should anyone have to face such a mad situation in the first place? It was suggested that better pre-delivery inspections would cost more; if that produces certainty, then that would be fine by me. Would one more inspection step cost more than the time and emotional stress of having bought a two thousand bucks lemon?

Rob C

It makes perfect sense if it's a very small light leak. You need a long enough exposure in bright light for enough light to leak in to be noticeable, and the only way of getting such an exposure is with a very strong ND filter.

I don't consider the lens fatally flawed because of this, though. If you do a lot of multi-minute exposures in daylight it's a problem, but that's a pretty extreme corner case that's not going to affect very many people. I've certainly never noticed anything like this in my shots, and I've been using the lens since its initial release.

never mind....

Long exposures in daylight is not a misuse of the camera, but a tool in achieving an artistic look in the image. It was done in the film days, and is doable in digital. The 24-70mm lens can't do it in the middle focal lengths, while all other lenses can. I'm voting with my pocket, when I avoid this lens. Prospective buyers of this lens should have access to any and all information pertaining to it's performance. As a buyer, if you can say you don't care about long exposures, and never will as long as you own this lens, then fine, buy it. As the manufacturer, Nikon, if they can say they don't care what the consumer thinks about a reproducible aberration in their top of the line 24mm-70mm lens, then they can choose to keep manufacturing and selling a lens that doesn't work at all controlled camera exposures.

Wht don't you try and isolate the cause of the problem as I suggested? If the leak is from the side (it surely must be), then a makeshift sleeve will fix it. Not elegant, but something tells me this is a slow style of shooting. (Yes I know a lens of this price should not need a sleeve, if that is indeed the solution, but that's life.)

I don't own the lens. I had one to try out. The defect prevents me from investing in one. Perhaps someone with one and an ND 10 filter can do the test, in daylight.

I have to admit with Duraace,that that sort of $,you should get a perfect product.

I haven't been able to re-produce the fault myself,but I'll let you know when.

I still can't believe this lens is getting such a bad rap from some ex-users.

To my knowledge it's the best 24-70 zoom out there.

Certainly better than Canon's,but even that one,got some dislikers etc.

At the end of the day,a good prime is still superior than any zoom.

However, I was lend to believe that the Nikon 24-70 was the nearest to any prime.

Happy shooting,

Cheers,
Willem.

I never said it was misuse of the camera. But if I understand the above posts correctly, it requires an exposure of 2+ minutes in sunlight (not nighttime exposures). For people who do such things, certainly it sounds like this would be a lens to avoid. But for a whole lot of people this will be a non-issue. That's all I was saying.

I have attached 2 shots. 1 with a single ND4 (13stops) and another with a ND3 (10stops) + ND4. The single ND filter shot was at f11/4minutes/ISO100 (less DR). The double filter shot was kind of a wild guess. Exposure was 62minutes (but should have been double) and without NR (I did not want to wait for 2 hours to get the shot and having my doors open (it is cold here). Both images have been shot at 50mm.

Now, on the 4 minutes shot I cannot see anything. On the 1hour shot it doesn't look pretty but I am quite sure I can improve that (using the Lee shade which I don't currently have for instance).

Images have been downsized and besides a little bit of sharpening no other adjustments or post-processing has taken place.

My lens doesn't exhibit the problems mentioned in this thread. Even the 1 hour shot doesn't as far as I am concerned. A bit more careful execution (and turning on the NR) will significantly improve that image. It doesn't show any light leakage or something like that.

This topic reminds me of the old, endless diatribes that go something like this:

"The SUX-2000 camera has banding/hot pixels/etc. when I take an hour-long exposure at ISO 128,000 of a bat in a belfry! Banding! Can you believe it? The SUX-2000 is junk! I'm not going to buy one, and neither should anyone else! I'm going to make 100 posts on 10 forums so no one else buys it either!"

People, every product has limitations and corners of operation where caution is required. Very long exposures in bright light, quite possibly facing towards the sun, while wearing nearly-opaque 12-stop ND filters is by almost any account an unusual and, in my opinion, extreme condition.

It's not like flare of one sort or another (if it's that, and if it's the lens and not the stacked rings, etc.) is a totally unknown problem or unacceptable flaw that results in the utter rejection of a lens either. Most people accept that flare happens from time to time. If the effect is real and repeatable and proven to be the lens, the answer may very well be "in those 1 out of 10,000 tasks, use a less complex lens like a 50mm."

It is not reasonable to expect any product, at any price, to be absolutely perfect in every way, no matter how extreme the test. A problem such as this, if real, does not make the lens fatally flawed any more than any other product that doesn't turn you into the next Ansel Adams or cure "manhood problems" during use, etc.

I have this lens, and it's magnificent. If you reject yours as unacceptably flawed, well, good luck finding an acceptable spouse...

good luck finding an acceptable spouse...


Priceless!

I'm very interested in this. Sounds like maybe a bad lot thing with the lens. I think I'll go to the store and try the test with their lens, in the store.

Could you confirm the settings for these shots? Focal length, especially?

Based on my gut feeling & "Dustback"'s posted image, that what "Downtown" & "Duraace" seen is the aberration due to such a long exposure AND bright sun light shining on the lens. This may have caused the light to enter from front. Nikon may be rejecting their claim as flawed filter connection to the barrel. We also are not made aware that adequate precautions were taken i.e. lens shade and umbrella to shade the camera/lens. So we do not know how resultant flare is interpreted by the sensor.
As I said this is just my guess no better than theirs that all 24-70 are flawed.

image 1)
Focal length 50mm
ISO100
4minutes (240sec) exposure
f11
NR on

image 2)
Focal length 50mm
ISO200
64minutes (3840sec) exposure
f8
NR off!

Dustbak,
was the sun hitting the camera and lens?
The problem is I think and others have said this,that light is seeping in from the outside of the lens.
Not trough the front.
As soon as I'm getting my ND filters,I'll try it myself.

Cheers,

Willem.

I took this around 4PM with the sun on the side (left side) of the lens. Not much sun since I was shooting from the floor of my space through the doors (so I could stay in and remain warm ). I can repeat it one of this days with the sun directly hitting the equipment but if there is a real leak it would have been apparent after exposing for over an hour.

Dustbak,
leuke dakpannetjes!
It's obvious now that the problems is with light entering trough the side of the lens.
In direct sunlight only.

I'm encouraged by this. Looks like a case of a bad batch. I will try do a test with a new one, from a local store.
What was the camera?

I've reproduced the problem to some extent and I think I've determined the cause and a solution.

Details:

First off, I don't have a 10 stop ND filter - sorry guys, I'm not dropping 100$ just to do this test and then watch the filter collect dust on the shelf since I have absolutely zero use for such a thing, but I do have a lens cap....

I have always thought the problem might be a light leak, so my test setup was as follows:

D300 on tripod/ballhead, set in landscape position
24-70/2.8 lens set at F/9 and 50mm
ISO 125
long NR set to "on"
Shutter set to bulb
remote release timed exposure of 4 minutes

Instead of a 10 stop ND, I put the lens cap on the lens and put the lens hood on the lens as I normally would.

Took a 250 w/s Dynalite strobe I had lying around, mounted it so the unit aimed down at approximately 40 degrees straight on into the lens/camera.
Center of flash tube was 3 feet from focal plane of lens/body.
Set the monolite at 250 w/s and turned the modeling light on full.
Ambient light reading at that distance for that ISO was 1/250 at F/16, which emulates strong daylight.
In addition, during the 4 minute exposure I fired the strobe at full power (250 w/s) 30 (yes, thirty) times, which I do believe is considerably brighter than any daylight exposure you're ever likely to encounter on this planet.

My first frame showed a narrow horizontal area along the top left edge of light leak/flare - from the left edge to maybe 1/4 to 1/3 inwards. Not very tall, perhaps 3/8 of an inch on the back LCD screen. The rest of the frame was pitch black.

I then redid the test with just the ambient light from the modeling light (did not hit the strobe 30 times at full power) and got a weaker version of the above.

I then covered the lens barrel with a dark washcloth and repeated the first test (4 minutes ambient, 30 hits with the strobe): result: pure black frame.

Then I removed the dark washcloth and covered the plastic cover over the distance display on the top of the lens barrel with a double folded piece of gaffers tape and redid the same test (4 minutes ambient, 30 hits with the strobe). Result: no flare, pure black frame.

Obviously while I can't exactly reproduce the ND filter scenario, I'm deducing that there is a light leak around that plastic distance display in these conditions that's causing the problem.

While nothing I say will make the 24-70 haters ever like this lens, I would say if you want to do this sort of long exposure/daylight shooting, I'm betting a double layer of black masking tape over the plastic distance scale would solve the problem.

Hope this helps....
(and perhaps someone can also verify my test to see if they come up with the same thing)

-m

ps: I apologize for not providing samples: I don't have a hosting site at the moment.

Looks like you've solved the problem NashvilleMike!
Well done!

All we need is to cover the distance scale,which I never look at anyway.

Phew,

Best Willem.

Apparently the problem doesn't show up at the extreme lengths (i.e. 24mm and 70mm). Does this make sense given your deduction re: the plastic distance display leak? The same test at those settings would be interesting. Are the frames still pure black?

I suspect that the difference in settings like 24 or at 70,the internal movements will not reproduce the same.That's why the issue is only at midrange at 50.

I agree. The 24-70 has an 'inner barrel' that extends/retracts depending on the focal length, so it could be that it depends on the internal position of various elements of the lens.