Nikon 24mm-70mm lens abberation at long exposure

[duraace]

I go back a few decades in photography and while I've heard of this technique for a while, I've never personally known anyone who practiced it nor have I done so myself so I can't speak as to how popular or how much it is practices amongst the spectrum of photographic styles.

You've definitely discovered a design defect - and I'd call it a defect more than an abberation (an abberation is typically thought of as a result of an optical design decision, not a manufacturing snafu); the question is whether it's of a magnitude that Nikon would ever redesign the lens (and whether they'd even know about it - they're not cruising the forums when they make design decisions), and as I've stated before, I don't think it's a deal killer being it doesn't impact the vast majority of usage the lens is intended for.

As for other lenses - good question. I sold off my 70-200 recently, but if I get some other things knocked off my to-do list, I might try it on some of the other newer Nikon 'G' lenses I've got kicking around.

-m

FYI  It's not present on any of my prime lenses.  I only have one zoom - 14mm-24mm and it doesn't accommodate filters, so not a candidate. There are a few known professional photographers practicing long exposure, and commanding large sums for their prints.

[rethmeier]

Duraace,

you can test the 14-24 with the lens cap on,like NashvilleMike did.

All you need is light entering trough the plastic distance counter to show the problem.

That is if there is one with all other Nikon zooms.

Cheers,

Willem.


N.B The good thing that came out of this,that the "problem" has been solved.

[duraace]

Duraace,

you can test the 14-24 with the lens cap on,like NashvilleMike did.

All you need is light entering trough the plastic distance counter to show the problem.

That is if there is one with all other Nikon zooms.

Cheers,

Willem.


N.B The good thing that came out of this,that the "problem" has been solved.

I wouldn't say the problem has been "solved", but rather an easy workaround to a reproducible design defect in thr 24-70 lens has been found. The bigger question remains, is this common among all zoom lenses and how does Nikon view the issue?

[duraace]

I go back a few decades in photography and while I've heard of this technique for a while, I've never personally known anyone who practiced it nor have I done so myself so I can't speak as to how popular or how much it is practiced amongst the spectrum of photographic styles.

You've definitely discovered a design defect - and I'd call it a defect more than an abberation (an abberation is typically thought of as a result of an optical design decision, not a manufacturing snafu); the question is whether it's of a magnitude that Nikon would ever redesign the lens (and whether they'd even know about it - they're not cruising the forums when they make design decisions), and as I've stated before, I don't think it's a deal killer being it doesn't impact the vast majority of usage the lens is intended for.

As for other lenses - good question. I sold off my 70-200 recently, but if I get some other things knocked off my to-do list, I might try it on some of the other newer Nikon 'G' lenses I've got kicking around.

-m

I did the same test as NashvilleMike on the 14mm-24mm lens, and it came out solid black, so no design defect showing up on this lens on long exposure, which suggests the defect is in the 24mm-70mm lens only.  Can anyone provide similar results for the 70mm-200mm?

[clayh]

Somehow double posted. see below

[clayh]

I just sent my 24-70 back to Nikon because it does this. Here is the problem. This is a 30 sec exposure at roughly f/11 in all cases (3.0ND used!)

I think mine is caused by a internal coating defect. Observe how the defect migrates up and to the left as the focal length is increased. It is gone at 70mm!

[duraace]

As NashvilleMike discovered on page 3 of this post: "a double layer of black masking tape over the plastic distance scale would solve the problem"

[Rob C]

I wonder if anyone is going to apologise to duraace for the original scorn with which he was greeted by some?

Sort of reminds me of politics: there are those who simply refuse to accept that their gods can have huge, plodding, feet of clay.

Rob C

[Slough]

I wonder if anyone is going to apologise to duraace for the original scorn with which he was greeted by some?

Sort of reminds me of politics: there are those who simply refuse to accept that their gods can have huge, plodding, feet of clay.

Rob C

It is not uncommon for someone to bad mouth equipment whilst being unable to provide proof, such is life. And the original post was very sketchy, and did not provide the amount of detail required to determine what the problem was. However, a bit of thought, and some tests, from numerous people on the forum have solved his issue, so he should be a happy bunny, or at least a more informed one who can make his own decision about the lens in question.

And Duraace might like to thank me for suggesting what the problem might be, describing a way to test for it without need of a ND filter and suggesting a simple fix. After all some other people including NashvilleMike originally said they could not see the problem, or could not performs tests due to not having a 10 stop ND filter. (Then again, I'm not one of the forum 'experts'.) And he might like to thank NashvilleMike for carrying out the suggested test, confirming that it is due to light leakage from the sides, and confirming that the suggested fix does work.

There's no need for masking tape which could get gunk on the lens and into the mechanism. A simple sleeve (card with black felt on the inside) should work and could be stored on the lens.

I have to agree with those who say that this is a design flaw, and Nikon should be alerted. As to whether or not this is a "not fit for purpose" flaw, that I do not know. Not many people carry out such exposures. I would say it is not a reason to claim a refund from Nikon. Just my opinion, and others may disagree.

[Downtown]

It is not uncommon for someone to bad mouth equipment whilst being unable to provide proof, such is life. And the original post was very sketchy, and did not provide the amount of detail required to determine what the problem was. However, a bit of thought, and some tests, from numerous people on the forum have solved his issue, so he should be a happy bunny, or at least a more informed one who can make his own decision about the lens in question.

And Duraace might like to thank me for suggesting what the problem might be, describing a way to test for it without need of a ND filter and suggesting a simple fix. After all some other people including NashvilleMike originally said they could not see the problem, or could not performs tests due to not having a 10 stop ND filter. (Then again, I'm not one of the forum 'experts'.) And he might like to thank NashvilleMike for carrying out the suggested test, confirming that it is due to light leakage from the sides, and confirming that the suggested fix does work.

There's no need for masking tape which could get gunk on the lens and into the mechanism. A simple sleeve (card with black felt on the inside) should work and could be stored on the lens.

I have to agree with those who say that this is a design flaw, and Nikon should be alerted. As to whether or not this is a "not fit for purpose" flaw, that I do not know. Not many people carry out such exposures. I would say it is not a reason to claim a refund from Nikon. Just my opinion, and others may disagree.

A politician in the making .........in other words "Your right, I apologize".

[Slough]

A politician in the making .........in other words "Your right, I apologize".

Sorry? Until my post people were rambling around all over the shop, saying they could not reproduce the problem.

You're right, I apologise for sitting at home, and spending 5 minutes thinking about the problem, and coming up with ideas that helped resolve it. And I apologise for resenting the fact that Nashville Mike did as I suggested without mentioning my post and others refer to his solution. In future I won't bother to be helpful, and instead when somone posts a vague question, badly expressed, missing important details, not describing what they were doing, and sounding like a troll, I'll ignore it, and not waste my time.

And maybe you should come down from your pedestal.

[Downtown]

Sorry? Until my post people were rambling around all over the shop, saying they could not reproduce the problem.

You're right, I apologise for sitting at home, and spending 5 minutes thinking about the problem, and coming up with ideas that helped resolve it. And I apologise for resenting the fact that Nashville Mike did as I suggested without mentioning my post and others refer to his solution. In future I won't bother to be helpful, and instead when somone posts a vague question, badly expressed, missing important details, not describing what they were doing, and sounding like a troll, I'll ignore it, and not waste my time.

And maybe you should come down from your pedestal.

After reviewing the thread you in fact did have the initial problem diagnosed and should be given full credit for your contibutation to rectify the problem. If I offended you I apoligize! I'm just happy that I can now go back and use this lense to it's full potential.

[Slough]

After reviewing the thread you in fact did have the initial problem diagnosed and should be given full credit for your contibutation to rectify the problem. If I offended you I apoligize! I'm just happy that I can now go back and use this lense to it's full potential.

Okay, fair enough. Sorry if my tone to Durace was a bit harsh, although I think scepticism was not unreasonable. And no you did not offend me.

[rethmeier]

Can we now put this to bed?

I've already put black electrical tape over the plastic part that is the culprit.

That is IF was going to do extreme long exposures.

My long exposures are usually in dimly lit areas and a 30 seconds max.

I doubt if that would create the problem.


Thanks for the testers to re create and find the problem.

N.B Maybe RobC can now try another 24-70?