Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 5 posts | 
by Bill Chambers on Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:43 pm
User avatar
Bill Chambers
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4017
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Location: Milton, Florida
I need a little advice on whether it would do any good to send my Nikkor 24-120 f/4 lens to Nikon Repair.  

The lens is relatively new (still within warranty), and hasn't been mistreated at all. It isn't "broken" as such, but it has had a couple of issues ever since I first unboxed it.

1 - A very minor issue - the Zoom Ring is harder to twist versus any other Nikon zoom I've ever owned.  It's not that it's actually difficult to turn, it's just much stiffer than usual.  In and of itself, this really isn't an issue, but I'm wondering if this could be the result of it being damaged in shipment, or if it could have anything to do with the main issue.

2 - The main issue - SHARPNESS, or the lack thereof.  I shoot landscapes, and my most used apertures are f/8 to f/11, but my 24-120 is basically unusable at those apertures. It is extremely sharp at f/5.6, but it begins to loose acuity quickly after f/6.3.

My question is this. Is this something the Nikon Service Center can even repair or is this just a unchangeable trait of this lens?

Currently, I'm forced to focus stack any grand landscape if I want any degree of sharpness throughout.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.
Please visit my web site, simply nature - Photographic Art by Bill Chambers
Bill Chambers
Milton, Florida


Last edited by Bill Chambers on Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:06 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8628
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
It's unlikely that the tight zoom would affect focus. Mine is tight, as well. What I find regarding focus is that it will focus well at f11 but, it simply is not sharp. It reminds me a lot of a phone image. Very fuzzy and not up to a mirrorless camera's potential. I'm sure that the f2.8 version has to be superior. I'm disappointed after reading certain reviews that were very positive. I'm just glad that I got it for $425. I sure would have been disgusted if I spent full retail for it. That was before I even owned a z body. Disappointing when used with a z8.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Bill Chambers on Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:48 am
User avatar
Bill Chambers
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4017
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Location: Milton, Florida
SantaFeJoe wrote: It's unlikely that the tight zoom would affect focus. Mine is tight, as well. What I find regarding focus is that it will focus well at f11 but, it simply is not sharp. It reminds me a lot of a phone image. Very fuzzy and not up to a mirrorless camera's potential. I'm sure that the f2.8 version has to be superior. I'm disappointed after reading certain reviews that were very positive. I'm just glad that I got it for $425. I sure would have been disgusted if I spent full retail for it. That was before I even owned a z body. Disappointing when used with a z8.

Joe
Thanks so much, Joe!  Perhaps I used the incorrect terminology.  I should have said sharpness, because I'm in the same boat as you. The camera focuses, but the resulting image is NOT sharp or usable at any aperture above f/6.3.

I agree on the reviews, most everyone I've read or seen on YouTube has been extremely positive, especially about sharpness.

Again, my question.  Do you think this issue is something Nikon Service can remedy, or are we just out of luck?
Please visit my web site, simply nature - Photographic Art by Bill Chambers
Bill Chambers
Milton, Florida


Last edited by Bill Chambers on Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 

by Kerry on Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:31 am
Kerry
Forum Contributor
Posts: 920
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Chicago area/Wilmington, DE area
Apologies in advance for the length of this reply; I want to provide some context for the ensuing remarks.

First, I have shot extensively with the 24-120/4 S lens on a Z7ii for a couple of years. I owned the D version of the F-mount (variable aperture) 24-120 back in the day and while I thought it was okay, sharpness-wise, on an APS-C sensor camera, when I transitioned to full frame 15 years ago I ditched the lens for good as the corner performance was atrocious. Word was that the G version of the lens was better, but still not very good, so I moved on from the 24-120, even though I loved the versatility of the focal range. So I was very skeptical about the Z-mount version until I read multiple glowing reviews of it and put in an order not all that long after the lens was released to the world in 2021. To say that I haven't regretted the purchase is an understatement. Reviews aside, I subjected the lens to some careful testing, both in-field and under more controlled circumstances shortly after it arrived, fulling intending to send it back if it didn't withstand pixel-peeping scrutiny. But it did, and it is now my workhorse in the field.

I shoot the 24120 at f/8 and f/11 routinely. I also do a lot of focus stacking with it, but that's because I'm regularly exceeding physical depth of field limits with my compositional choices. When DOF limits aren't an issue, I eschew stacking. I have found the 24-120 to be very sharp, even at these diffraction-impacted apertures.

It's certainly possible that there's some sort of sample variation going on here, but what you're describing, Bill--essentially, trash above f/6.1 with the lens--is in such contradiction with my own experience with the same model, as well as a few recent discussions I've had with others who own this lens and everything I've ever read in terms of a review--implies that there is something seriously amiss with your copy.

I can't say with certainty that Nikon service can fix the lens, but I would, at a minimum, contact whomever you bought it from and see if they'll exchange it. Failing that, I would absolutely send it in after contacting Nikon service and explaining the problem to see if it can be repaired, because what you're describing simply doesn't square with the level of performance that this lens is capable of.

Best of luck with this and please let us know how it goes.
 

by Bill Chambers on Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:32 pm
User avatar
Bill Chambers
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4017
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Location: Milton, Florida
Kerry wrote: It's certainly possible that there's some sort of sample variation going on here, but what you're describing, Bill--essentially, trash above f/6.1 with the lens--is in such contradiction with my own experience with the same model, as well as a few recent discussions I've had with others who own this lens and everything I've ever read in terms of a review--implies that there is something seriously amiss with your copy.

I can't say with certainty that Nikon service can fix the lens, but I would, at a minimum, contact whomever you bought it from and see if they'll exchange it.  Failing that, I would absolutely send it in after contacting Nikon service and explaining the problem to see if it can be repaired, because what you're describing simply doesn't square with the level of performance that this lens is capable of.

Best of luck with this and please let us know how it goes.
Thanks so much, Kerry!  Your comments are very helpful.  Unfortunately, the lens is well beyond any return date possibility.  I actually purchased the lens before I purchased the body, so I wasn't able to thoroughly test it until after the return date window had expired.  Purchased it thru B&H. Also, to make sure it wasn't a body problem, I've tested it with two different bodies with identical results. I was really excited about this lens as well as the 14-30 because, at age 72 now, I was trying to reduce weight I have to drag around.

I too have read and watched NUMEROUS reviews which extolled the sharpness of the lens, and my lens is VERY sharp at f/5.6 & f/6.3, and usably sharp from f/4 to f/7.1, but after that it really goes downhill.  The first time I took it out and actually used it I came home with beautifully exposed images that were completely unusable because they were shot at mostly f/11 and so fuzzy they were beyond any kind of repair with any software. Thankfully, it was just a trip down the road from home and not a "real" trip.  

Here's the test results I came away with from my testing:
Image
Please visit my web site, simply nature - Photographic Art by Bill Chambers
Bill Chambers
Milton, Florida
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
5 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group