Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon 24mm-70mm lens abberation at long exposure  (Read 13715 times)
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« on: October 04, 2009, 08:59:03 PM »
ReplyReply

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??
Logged
Jonathan Ratzlaff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2009, 10:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Please post an example.
Logged
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2009, 11:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Ratzlaff
Please post an example.
Didn't saved any. It was a course and the instructor's lens.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2009, 12:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, what were the settings, and how long was the exposure?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2009, 03:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1924



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2009, 08:54:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duraace
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??

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
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2009, 10:46:38 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1924



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 05:18:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duraace
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
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2009, 05:35:01 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 05:54:14 PM by duraace » Logged
grepmat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2009, 11:35:47 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 11:47:14 PM by grepmat » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2009, 03:19:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: grepmat
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
Logged

rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2009, 05:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2009, 05:51:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
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.

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.
Logged
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2009, 07:37:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
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.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2009, 07:26:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duraace
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?
Logged
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2009, 11:00:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
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.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2009, 03:33:36 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
duraace
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2009, 03:57:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rethmeier
Pardon me,on wich Nikon DSLR was this test done?

My DSLR is a D700, but other models had the same effect. D300, D200.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2009, 04:11:21 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178


« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2009, 10:21:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duraace
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.

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
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad