Nikon 24-70mm woes :(

Status
Not open for further replies.
that's very gracious of steve, i'd imagine it's taken a bump in transit? possibly take it up with the postal service if it was sent insured?
 
I was told the other day at the post office, they don't pay for damage anymore with special delivery! Only lost parcels!!!

Never checked any further, but not sure if that can be right.
 
It was very well packed, can't imagine it was damaged in transit. I'm sure there is no basis for a claim as there is no cosmetic damage at all.
 
This can only call for one thing...

BEAR HUG!
 
Oh dear, I'm supposed to be revising for tomorrow's exam and instead I'm looking up the definition of evisceration. Maybe I could squeeze it into my essay somehow...
 
Just my 2p but having sold a few items in the classifieds the most expensive being a Nikon 70-300 vr I would never touch the money recieved until the buyer is 100% happy.
 
tell me if i'm wrong but looking at this with no bias whatsoever it does appear you've brought this up 1 month after purchase?

i think sharing the repair bill seems very reasonable tbh
 
I could tell straightaway by looking at the image that the lens is ****ed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise...
 
I didn't mean to sound arsey if i did, and your explanation is valid and yeah you were stupid for not testing it out immediately but we're all human :P
 
Not to worry, I could have taken it badly but am feeling a bit better about the whole thing now as hopefully a resolution is near - turns out Fixation's repair centre is just down the road from me so I'm going to drop it in for an estimate. I'm hoping they will be able to carry out the repair on-site so that I can get it back ASAP.
 
Quick question - just to rule out other things....

Do you have access to another Nikon body which you can try the lens on? I'm guessing from the images that it will be the same.

Also, there isn't a filter on the lens is there?
 
I think:

This thread is out of order.

You should have asked for sample images before buying
You should have raised the issues with the seller immediately

The newspaper shot looks like something has moved while shooting, shutter speed of 1/50th at F2.8 doesnt leave a lot of room for error, the second shot is at 1/160th, which shows less movement. Whats it like at F5?
 
trencheel303 said:
I could tell straightaway by looking at the image that the lens is ****ed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise...
Click to expand...

what makes you say that? the F2.8 shots look like unprocessed F2.8 shots to me, needs a spot of sharpening...the second shot sharpens quite nicely.

I think more shots of other stuff might be required to make a decision
 
matty said:
I think:

This thread is out of order.

You should have asked for sample images before buying
You should have raised the issues with the seller immediately

The newspaper shot looks like something has moved while shooting, shutter speed of 1/50th at F2.8 doesnt leave a lot of room for error, the second shot is at 1/160th, which shows less movement. Whats it like at F5?
Click to expand...

So if I haven't asked for sample images it's OK for it to be faulty? And if I don't realise the fault immediately then I'm on my own? I'm an idiot, I didn't check it straight away, we've already established that... did you read post #15?

If you think the thread is out of order then by all means close it, as I've already said. The lens is faulty though, end of story - it's going to Fixation tomorrow who will confirm.
 
i think you need to post more example images. The ones you have posted are not the best test. Get a focus chart and shoot that. A newspaper that isnt flat at 1/50th leaves NO room for error, even the mirror flipping up will give you shake. The comparison shot against the tamron, what speed was that shot at?

Its buyer-beware when you buy stuff, its like the folk who insist on not getting full contact details. You dont buy a car without a test drive, If i was dropping £900+ on a used lens, I would want to see pictures. Im sorry that you think its a duff lens, the seller has offered to contribute to the repair, I think thats fair enough, especially given the time frame.
 
Matt, I agree with your doubts about the 1/50s one, but as I've said, tomorrow it will be going to Fixation for an expert opinion so I don't see the point in posting any more samples. I will update the thread when I hear back from them if it is left open. Regarding the covering of repair costs though, I still don't think you've read the thread properly - I said that I have soft images from day 1.
 
The 24-70 won't produce stellar results when used very close up (wide open, 70mm close to MFD).

Take a shot 70mm, 5 to 10 meters away wide open, decent shutter speed (4x focal length so 1/250 minimum) - it should be sharp. But don't do the sort of "testing" you are doing here.....
 
sammyd56 said:
Oh dear, I'm supposed to be revising for tomorrow's exam and instead I'm looking up the definition of evisceration. Maybe I could squeeze it into my essay somehow...
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing! :lol: Good luck with your exams (and the lens) :)
 
sammyd56 said:
Matt, I agree with your doubts about the 1/50s one, but as I've said, tomorrow it will be going to Fixation for an expert opinion so I don't see the point in posting any more samples. I will update the thread when I hear back from them if it is left open. Regarding the covering of repair costs though, I still don't think you've read the thread properly - I said that I have soft images from day 1.
Click to expand...

ive read the thread, and looked at the samples. I would be interested to hear what fixation say. I really hope it all works out ok.
 
From the two sample images shown I think it'd be very difficult to assess this properly...
See what Fixation say after they get it on a test-bench for calibration...
I've had two of these lenses and they are super-dooper sharp - as sharp at 50mm and f/5.6 as my Nikkor AF-G 50mm f/1.4 (also set at at 5.6)...
 
matty said:
what makes you say that? the F2.8 shots look like unprocessed F2.8 shots to me, needs a spot of sharpening...the second shot sharpens quite nicely.

I think more shots of other stuff might be required to make a decision
Click to expand...

Look at the image closely, not at the downsized form it appears in the browser. It's soft as buggery (I've never seen a 'working' lens so soft even wide open) and has a lot of abberations, almost like there is 'ghosting' of the newsprint. Sharpening won't get rid of what's there and if they are the kind of unprocessed f/2.8 shots you are used to seeing, well... get some new glass ;) - or glasses for your eyes!

Arkady said:
From the two sample images shown I think it'd be very difficult to assess this properly...
See what Fixation say after they get it on a test-bench for calibration...
I've had two of these lenses and they are super-dooper sharp - as sharp at 50mm and f/5.6 as my Nikkor AF-G 50mm f/1.4 (also set at at 5.6)...
Click to expand...


Exactly, it isn't the kind of lens that is going to be rubbish wide open. The shot is rubbish!
 
The nikon looks better to me, less distortion etc etc but then the Nikon shot is cropped/framed differently to the Sigma. That botton left corner is down to your framing, you can see brick work in the bottom right corner of the sigma shot missing from the Nikon. Also the Sigma shot is more off centre than the Nikon.

I think if your going to do any "test" shots you need to do them properly and frame each shot identically :)
 
Yikes, you seriously think the 24-70 shot is sharper?!

I should have added the caveat, yes the perspective is slightly different, but the Nikon shot is more straight-on to the wall and therefore the bottom-left should be sharper than the Tamron surely?
 
I'm waiting to hear what fixation say about this lens after they have done a proper test on it as none of the above images are really good enough to test whether this lens has a problem or not. The lens may just need a little calibration on the camera or it could be a bad copy. Hopefully we'll find out by the end of the day if Fixation have a quick turn around.
 
For what it's worth my original 24-70 was rubbish compared to the one I have now. I notice you use a D700 - I've heard of many people complain of softness issues with the 24-70/D700 combination. Having said that images with my current 24-70 are fine on both D3s and D700.

I suspect you were sold a soft lens (I'm not saying the seller knew this) and now need to get it fixed.

Sorry you've had to go through this.
 
sammyd56 said:
Yikes, you seriously think the 24-70 shot is sharper?!

I should have added the caveat, yes the perspective is slightly different, but the Nikon shot is more straight-on to the wall and therefore the bottom-left should be sharper than the Tamron surely?
Click to expand...

Can you do this flat on - the bottom corner is out of DOF, so you can't use that.

Flat on target.

Center looks fine.

Don't expect a huge difference between the Tamron and Nikon for sharpness, 5x has never meant 5x more sharpness. more like 1% (if that)
 
Sam, I have a similar issue with my new Canon EF-S 15-85, hopefully Ian will let me know how to get it sorted shortly, but I'd suggest taking a shot then turing the camera around 180 degrees and taking it again. Rotate the inverted image in PS and compare it to the original image, if it's a decentering issue with the rear elements out of alignment the softness will change position.

Here's what I'm talking about: http://www.flickr.com/photos/75189466@N00/sets/72157624077505326/
 
sammyd56 said:
One more sample then, I won't post any more comparisons because they won't be exactly the same framing as I didn't use a tripod... so tell me, does this really look normal? f4 this time, 1/128, on the D700. Same deal as before, SOOC unsharpened.

http://www.samdobsonphotography.com/2470-6.jpg
Click to expand...

Hmm, that is a LOT better, but I'm still not happy with the quality off that sucker, specially considering it's at f/4. Perhaps I've just gotten too used to the supreme quality produced by prime lenses - heck, perhaps I'm gonna disappoint myself when I buy a 17-40! :gag:

In all seriousness though I still think that lens is rather soft or buggered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top