Anyone had or has this issue? I love the lens for closer shooting, like closeup ,etc. but if the focus is further away, or infinity, it seems like there is lot to be desired from $1700 lens. I recently took couple shots, and even stopped down to F8 or 10 where it suppose to be just about sharpest before diffraction starts to kick in, I'm still underwhelmed. My 24 af-d old prime is sharper at any aperture at same FL ( 24mm)My other lenses I shoot either wide opened ( 70-200 ) or 16-35 I shoot wide opened to F10 and sharp as tack at any aperture so i know it is not my technique, or something...Should i send it to nikon for tuning and check up?BTW, I did focus chart tests, not front of back focus to make a difference,but again, the lens is sharp between min. focus distance and say 20 ft, when I try to take wide landscape shot with it that's where disappointment comes... Thanks -- http://www.infiniteartphotography.com http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

A few thoughtsTry 35mm as it is very sharp at any distance there, 24 is not this lenses best length.Try live view/tripod focus instead of AF s mode, and make sure you are using tripod, head, remote release, shutter delay. If you are not getting sharp results at distance using live view and solid support at, say F/8, your lens has issues. If you get sharp results with live view but not so with af-s mode, you've got AF calibration issues and service might be an option there too.-m

I understand Mike, but I did not buy $1700 24-70mm lens to use it from 35-70..I even took some shots, at F16 at still not really happy. I'll observe it for a while, and if i keep being turned down by the image quality, I might send it to nikon to have then look at it, since I just got it about 2 months ago.I shot some iso 1600 shots with 16-35 at 16mm f4 ( wide opened) and they are much sharper then this lens at 24mm. weird...My 70-200 II is also like from another planet in comparison, like kit lens vs pro lens....here is the sample at 24mm f 10, processed slightly my usual way, below is photo of the fisherman, shot on longer end almost wide opened. (sharp where focused, cannot be said about the tree shot)....also, here is photo of my daughter... 70mm i believe f 3.2...

Curiously I was just browsing another thread that suggests it is not at it's best at close range...http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=37789864

If you bought the 24-70 to be a 24mm lens specifically, you made a bad purchase decision. Let's get that out of the way right there, as blunt as it sounds. Even at distance, though, it should be pretty sharp center of frame - it's the edges and corners at 24mm specifically where things can get less than desirable compared to other options - not bad, but not optimum either.The lens shines, and I mean shines in that even the best primes don't beat it by much (if at all) between 30 and 60mm. At 70 it drops off a tiny bit (which is why you're seeing the 70-200 VR2 beat it here), and it's still pretty good at 28mm - I tend to think of it as a 28-70 that can drop a bit lower if I need to. BTW, there is no zoom I know of in this range that is flawless at all focal lengths. They all have sweet spots.The reason I specified 35mm is that at that aperture the lens is near it's best. If you aren't getting sharp distance shots, there's a problem, and you need to start doing the troubleshooting I suggested to try and figure it out.I've shot landscape with my 24-70 and have had zero problems with sharpness at distance, but again, I reach for other glass at 24mm so I don't use this lens at that specific focal length.-m

And of course, reality is that within the strong range I've mentioned about a billion times here (30-60mm), it's excellent at short range too.I'm frankly amazed at how many folks have no clue how to properly test and evaluate their "faulty" lenses. Enough that I seriously wonder why the hell I bother contributing in these forums some times. It's a lost cause.-m

akjoswrote:Anyone had or has this issue? I love the lens for closer shooting, like closeup ,etc. but if the focus is further away, or infinity, it seems like there is lot to be desired from $1700 lens. I recently took couple shots, and even stopped down to F8 or 10 where it suppose to be just about sharpest before diffraction starts to kick in, I'm still underwhelmed.The 24-70 is at its best from f/2.8 to f/5.6, then contrast seems to decline towards smaller apertures. I'd say diffraction starts to affect the image already when stopping down more than f/5.6; this is typical of high quality lenses. The 25 ZF does improve to f/8 and at that aperture is much better than the 24-70, but the ZF is worse at wide apertures.Your findings are correct for this lens; at 24mm focused to long distances the image quality is mediocre. I wouldn't say that it's worse than 24 AF D which has horrible quality towards the edges of the FX frame. Did you use FX?Should i send it to nikon for tuning and check up?No point. This is the way the lens is. The far field quality is much better at longer focal lengths than at 24mm. This makes some sense as typically when shooting at 24mm you'd have some foreground interest in the near field, to which focus is set to, and then excellent results should be achieved. I almost never shoot a wide angle like that at infinity focus so in practice this problem hasn't caused me any concern. I have other 24mm lenses which perform better at infinity if need be, but I have no application for such a shot since all my 24mm landscapes are focused to roughly 2 m or so.Ilkka

akjoswrote:I understand Mike, but I did not buy $1700 24-70mm lens to use it from 35-70.. I even took some shots, at F16 at still not really happy.At f/16 no lens gives good results... I would stop down the 24-70 to no more than f/8, if you can get away with f/5.6 even better.You have to understand that the 24-70 is a lens optimized for event photography and photojournalism. For landscape it works great as long as you don't use the widest focal lengths at long distances. I can understand your frustration but if you have the 16-35 and it gives the results you want in this scenario, what is the problem? Use each lens where its strengths are.

slimandywrote:Curiously I was just browsing another thread that suggests it is not at it's best at close range...That's at its long end.Ilkka

At f/16 no lens gives good results...Hi !Well, "good" is a relative term, so I suppose you're correct.Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "few lenses are at there best at f/16"From my personal collection of lenses, I wouild consider the Zeiss macro 100/2 "good" at f/16.SLR Gear's testing seems to agree with my personal experience:".....Performance.....Performance is imperceptibly better at ƒ5.6, and only starts to degrade by ƒ16 with the introduction of some minor diffraction limiting. Degradation is almost insignificant, as it's only by ƒ22 that we see 1.5 blur units again. This performance is identical between sub- and full-frame camera bodies/http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/zeiss100f2mp/tloader.htm http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1141/cat/98If one were to agree that the Zeiss is excellent at f/11, then it would be reasonable to call it "good" at f/16. Nikon D3 ,Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF 1/60s f/16.0 at 100.0mm iso200Crop:More of a crop (look at the little white filament attached to leg):(Maybe not the best example as this was hand held at 1/60 sec).Best Regards,RBhttp://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

If you focus at infinity and while holding focus lock, release half pressed, change the zoom (focal length) the lens actual infinity focus point changes. What I'm trying to say is the the 24-70 has different infinity focus points at different focal lengths. My 17-35 does not do this. Because you have focus locked the camera, it will still take the shot.Instead of focus and compose you would need to compose, setting the focal length, then focus.I don't know if this is what is causing your problem but it is quirk of the 24-70 lense that can cause a soft infinity focus.Good luck, Chris

And of course, reality is that within the strong range I've mentioned about a billion times here (30-60mm), it's excellent at short range too.I'm frankly amazed at how many folks have no clue how to properly test and evaluate their "faulty" lenses. Enough that I seriously wonder why the hell I bother contributing in these forums some times. It's a lost cause.Hi Mike,FWIW, I for one, not only listen to and appreciate your advice, but on occasion have steered others toward it.I find your input some of the most consistently accurate and well stated.As regards the 24-70, you had extensive experience with yours before I had mine, and found your comments about its relative strengths and weaknesses very useful. They likely saved me some suboptimal images and aggravation.However, some folks are just not going to listen, understand, or bother to use the search function!"Some people would rather die than think; and many do"Bertrand RussellBest Regards,RBhttp://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

as Mike stated.Go here and click on the blur index window on the right, it becomes interactive.As you see at 24mm this lens goes from 0 blur in the center to +2 on the edges.http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13Have you shot a resolution chart in Live View, on a Tripod, with remote release to prove the lens good or bad at say 10 feet?Did you try with only the center focus point on test photos as the outer points will throw focus off in the center due to the focus plane curvature?For the record my 24-70 is just nice and sharp on my D700.Bob P.

Thanks, I appreciate the words.Some days I get so frustrated with the BS around here, other days I tolerate it better. Today is definitely the former!And thanks for showing what the 200/2 can do in other threads - you've earned the right to owning that lens for sure !

This is all macro, not long distance. OP said he gets good rsults at close distances, just not so much on distant subjects.

The 24-70 seems decent to me at distance. These were probably shot at f/5.6, but it might have been f/8.Full frame reference:Full res crop:Lower left corner:Now at 70mm f/2.8 full frame reference:Full res crop at f/2.8:At f/8:

This is all macro, not long distance. OP said he gets good rsults at close distances, just not so much on distant subjects.I wasn't responding to the OP (hence, my post was under the comment that I referenced). (I tend to have a pet peeve against blanket statements that are not always true)Anyway, here's a shot at of a distant subject f/22 (The lens is better at f/16):Nikon D3 ,Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF 20s f/22.0 iso800.In-camera Noise reduction.In-camera Image mergeAnd of course, there was once the "f/64 group" of Large format photographers (most notably Ansel Adams) who managed to get some pretty decent shot shots of distant subjects at f/64!The purpose of my response to the statement that "no lens is good at f/16" was to let readers who not might know, that "good" images can indeed be taken at f/16 (even of distant subjects). You just have to understand your particular equipment.Best regards,RBhttp://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

akjoswrote:Anyone had or has this issue? I love the lens for closer shooting, like closeup ,etc. but if the focus is further away, or infinity, it seems like there is lot to be desired from $1700 lens. I recently took couple shots, and even stopped down to F8 or 10 where it suppose to be just about sharpest before diffraction starts to kick in, I'm still underwhelmed. My 24 af-d old prime is sharper at any aperture at same FL ( 24mm)Does the situation improve with LiveView?-C

I understand your points and of course I do reach for 16-35 if I have it with me, but i got 24-70 mostly as a "walkaround" lens , so I could shoot some wide scenery as well as nice portrait shots at 70mm 2.8 , If I decide to take just one lens with me and not the whole backpack full of gear. So far I hardly shoot with the lens because every time I take it out I'm disappointed.I generally agree with the choice of aperture, i hardly stop down past F8, very seldom go to 10 if it's really bright outside, regardless , no matter what aperture the lens leaves much to be desired on the wide end. Next time I'll go out, I'll take SAME photo with 24-70, 24 2.8 afd and 16-35 at same apertures and compare. -- http://www.infiniteartphotography.com http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

But I did not express my disappointment with edges, but with the sharpness across the frame overall. I honestly think that corner sharpness phobia is over rated and I never pixel peep if my very edges of the frame are tack sharp or not. If the whole photo is kind of blurry, then it is hard to ignore. I dont use live view btw... -- http://www.infiniteartphotography.com http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries