The AF-S 24-70 f2.8 "bump" issue

 
I’ve been staying away from this lens for a long time, butit’s getting harder to resist. The reason why I’ve been staying away from it is
something that I’ve come to learn is a common, almost classic problem with this
lens: the so called bump between 35mm and 50mm. The thing is I personally know
two people who have had bad luck with their lenses. I’ve tried them both and
they way to identify the problem is actually very simple. When you twist the
zoom ring, there is a slight resistance in the range I mentioned above. It’s
very obvious so you can’t really ignore it. The problem is that is also causes
the focus to misfire. These guys are also pros so you can imagine it wasn’t
really good for business.
But the biggest problem  is that  one of the guys had it serviced in Germany and,even though the lens started having this problem   twoweeks after he bought it ( so it was obviously covered by warranty), he still
had to pay to get it fixed. The explanation he got was astonishing. They said
it isn’t covered by warranty because it was obviously subjected to physical
shock and therefore they can’t cover it. The guy treated the lens with care
like any pro that makes this kind of investment, so no, he didn’t drop it. It
cost him another 1k$ to get it fixed.
I spoke about this to a Nikon dealer and the feedback hegave me about this lens is that it is an optical gem, but with 90s mechanics.
Have any of you guys ever had trouble with this lens? I amvery tempted by its optical performance (I mainly use primes) but I wouldn’t to
spend another 1K to get it fixed. 

i've never heard of any lens repair costing 1k...

This is a great lens. I would not worry about the negatives you may have heard and go for it. 

NOTE: If you shoot with mainly prime lens the 24-70 is a very bulky lens in comparison which may take a bit of getting used to.

There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

btw, I see no gear listed, are you a Canon plant?

Life wrote: i've never heard of any lens repair costing 1k...

Super-tele costs can be thousands for repairs.

I shoot both systems actually. I have a D700, a Fuji S5 Pro that uses everyhting Nikon and a 5dMK2 that I use mostly for video. 

effron wrote: btw, I see no gear listed, are you a Canon plant?

effron wrote: There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

WRONG!  

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II is better.  Also the 70-200 2.8L IS II and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II win best zoom lens in my book (it's a tie, I've used both a LOT).

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote: There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

WRONG!  

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II is better.  Also the 70-200 2.8L IS II and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II win best zoom lens in my book (it's a tie, I've used both a LOT).

Wrong, the Canon version is only better on a Canon body. Keep your silly white lens......

I have to agree. It's hard to see a clear difference in build and image quality between them .

effron wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote: There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

WRONG!  

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II is better.  Also the 70-200 2.8L IS II and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II win best zoom lens in my book (it's a tie, I've used both a LOT).

Wrong, the Canon version is only better on a Canon body. Keep your silly white lens......

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't use Canon lenses on a Nikon body.  Whereas you can use (with an adapter) Nikon lenses on a Canon body.  Lots of landscape guys use the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies (before the D800E came out that is).

Oh and the Canon white lenses are obviously better because they keep cooler in the sun.

Sergiu wrote: I have to agree. It's hard to see a clear difference in build and image quality between them .

Except the issue with the Nikon version where the rear node or whatever it's called breaks very easily (it happened to me and many other people).

There's a difference in image quality between the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Canon 24-70 2.8L II. Not a huge one, but it's there.  I've owned both.

Sure it's mainly in the corners and at 2.8, but you can tell the difference if you look at test charts at 100%  

www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-...&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All fanboyism aside, the difference between the 24-70 and 70-200 from both camps is minor and certainly not worth jumping systems over.

The Nikon 28-300 is definitely better than the Canon 28-300 in all ways except build quality.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote: There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

WRONG!  

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II is better.  Also the 70-200 2.8L IS II and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II win best zoom lens in my book (it's a tie, I've used both a LOT).

Wrong, the Canon version is only better on a Canon body. Keep your silly white lens......

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't use Canon lenses on a Nikon body.  Whereas you can use (with an adapter) Nikon lenses on a Canon body.  Lots of landscape guys use the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies (before the D800E came out that is).

Oh and the Canon white lenses are obviously better because they keep cooler in the sun.

Sergiu wrote: I have to agree. It's hard to see a clear difference in build and image quality between them .

Except the issue with the Nikon version where the rear node or whatever it's called breaks very easily (it happened to me and many other people).

There's a difference in image quality between the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Canon 24-70 2.8L II. Not a huge one, but it's there.  I've owned both.

Sure it's mainly in the corners and at 2.8, but you can tell the difference if you look at test charts at 100%  

www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-...&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All fanboyism aside, the difference between the 24-70 and 70-200 from both camps is minor and certainly not worth jumping systems over.

The Nikon 28-300 is definitely better than the Canon 28-300 in all ways except build quality.

You had problems with your nikon 24-70 because you dropped it and broke it.

The Canon is sharper than the nikon, because it's a newer design.

Scotty wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

effron wrote: There's no bump issue, with a new lens anyway. Its possibly the best zoom lens ever made. If you want to deny yourself, its up to you. As for me, you couldn't get mine for what I paid for it six years ago!....

WRONG!  

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II is better.  Also the 70-200 2.8L IS II and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II win best zoom lens in my book (it's a tie, I've used both a LOT).

Wrong, the Canon version is only better on a Canon body. Keep your silly white lens......

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't use Canon lenses on a Nikon body.  Whereas you can use (with an adapter) Nikon lenses on a Canon body.  Lots of landscape guys use the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies (before the D800E came out that is).

Oh and the Canon white lenses are obviously better because they keep cooler in the sun.

Sergiu wrote: I have to agree. It's hard to see a clear difference in build and image quality between them .

Except the issue with the Nikon version where the rear node or whatever it's called breaks very easily (it happened to me and many other people).

There's a difference in image quality between the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Canon 24-70 2.8L II. Not a huge one, but it's there.  I've owned both.

Sure it's mainly in the corners and at 2.8, but you can tell the difference if you look at test charts at 100%  

www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-...&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All fanboyism aside, the difference between the 24-70 and 70-200 from both camps is minor and certainly not worth jumping systems over.

The Nikon 28-300 is definitely better than the Canon 28-300 in all ways except build quality.

You had problems with your nikon 24-70 because you dropped it and broke it.

The Canon is sharper than the nikon, because it's a newer design.

I did drop it, but it shouldn't have bent and locked the zoom mechanism like it did.   I didn't drop it very far (and the surface I dropped onto was padded), I've dropped kit lenses from higher and on harder surfaces and they're fine.  The Nikon 24-70 rear node or whatever it's called is notoriously weak and easy to distort so the zoom mechanism won't work.  I know I looked it up when it broke.  I was shocked "pro" glass could be so fragile (or maybe you could say poorly designed. 

Yeh newer design and so on.  Still sharper.

My Nikon 24-70 had a "bump" issue after about four years. The problem would come and go and was an inconvenience more than anything. I sold the lens for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with VR. I needed the VR because I shoot a lot of drag shutter. Haven't regretted the change at all. It's the only non-Nikon lens I own other than Tamron's 90mm macro (also a great lens infrequently used).