Nikon 24mm-70mm lens abberation at long exposure

[duraace]

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.

[NashvilleMike]

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

[Downtown]

"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?"

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.    

 [attachment=17189:BMP_0034.JPG]    ISO200, Exposure time of 81.2 Sec,  f/11 at 45mm

[rethmeier]

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.

[duraace]

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.

[Slough]

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.    

 [attachment=17189:BMP_0034.JPG]    ISO200, Exposure time of 81.2 Sec,  f/11 at 45mm

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).

[Rob C]

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.

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

[JeffKohn]

I don't see why this should occur only with an ND filter and a long exposure,

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.

[hilljf]

never mind....

[duraace]

..., 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.

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.

[Slough]

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.)

[duraace]

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.

[rethmeier]

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.

[JeffKohn]

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.

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.

[Dustbak]

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.

[grepmat]

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...

[rethmeier]

good luck finding an acceptable spouse...


Priceless!

[duraace]

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.

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.

[duraace]

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.

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

[SeanBK]

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.