My 24-70mm 2.8 lens just jammed up and will not zoom. Anyone else have this problem? Thankfully, it's still under warranty, so I will be taking it in. Any advice or helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. This is my first time with a mechanical issue.
24-70mm f/2.8 problem
(28 posts) (10 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Don't try anything yourself, you may do a lot more damage. Send it back for repair !
Posted 3 years ago # -
thanks bernard, good advice!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum, penang dude. That's too bad about your lens. I hope it's not too much trouble getting fixed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
send to Nikon repair in Melville, NY - odd problem, hmmm. . . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
thanks for the welcome johnnyapple! i thought it was weird too. i bought the lens here in malaysia and am hoping everything works out...i.e. that it's not a "second" or anything like that. i have the warranty card and receipt and plan to take it in to the place where I purchased it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm planning on buying that lens either when they put VR on it or in July, whichever comes first. Of course, they'll probably put VR on it in August.
Posted 3 years ago # -
well i don't think you'll regret getting it; i have loved it .....until now :( hopefully, it'll get fixed!
Posted 3 years ago # -
My 24-70 had an issue where it suddenly stopped being recognized by my cameras. I sent it in and they told me two different things.
1. It needed a major part repaired
2. There was nothing wrong with it when it was received and it worked on all their bodies.Good news is, when I received it back it has worked ever since. What I can't figure out though is why is this the only lens in Nikon's pro 2.8 line that doesn't zoom/focus internally?
Posted 3 years ago # -
AaronFoto said:
....What I can't figure out though is why is this the only lens in Nikon's pro 2.8 line that doesn't zoom/focus internally?It is an IF lens and extension of the front element when zooming is nothing out of the ordinary.
To date did not have problems with my 27-70 and the zoom ring seems is running nice and smooth on it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
AaronFoto said:
What I can't figure out though is why is this the only lens in Nikon's pro 2.8 line that doesn't zoom/focus internally?What about the 17-55 2.8 DX? It's not FX, but I'd consider it a pro lens. I know what you're saying, though. I'd personally rather have a bigger-size lens that doesn't extend.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I had that happen to my 24-70... (Dropped It ). Now the zoom ring is very stiff. I'd send it in for repairs.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum, bob. I think the release of the new 16-35 with VR has to mean they'll put VR in the 24-70 soon. I'm waiting with you.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 24-70 is still relatively new especially considering how old some of Nikon's other lenses are. I wouldn't wait around for its replacement.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You're probably right, Aaron, but it won't keep me from hoping. If it doesn't take a complete optical redesign to add VR, I think they should do it. It's 3 years old this year.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Guys when was the last time nikon put VR on a non-telephoto zoom under f/4??
Won't happen-there's really no need!
If they make a 35-70 f/4 to complement the 16-35/4 VR, that could see a VR module...
I think the 16-35/4 VR, 85 f/3.5 VR and 70-200 VR are good indications of the direction they are taking...
Posted 3 years ago # -
16-35 f/4 is actually nearly identical to the 24-70 as far as camera shake is concerned. At f/2.8 you use half the shutter speed compared with f/4, so the 16-35's 'equivalent shake factor' at f/2.8 (yes, I just made that up ;-) would make it like a 32-70 (2x16-2x35). So there's exactly the same need on the 24-70 as the 16-35 as it covers the same 'shake range' wide open on the long end. I agree that VR is more useful for lenses with a smaller max aperture, but do you know anyone who always shoots wide open, anyway?
I would say the lenses you listed (esp the 16-35) show that Nikon is putting VR in pro-quality lenses, and that makes the 24-70 a good candidate to get it, too.Posted 3 years ago # -
"equivalent shake factor", lol. Quick jonny trademark it before Nikon or canon use it in their marketing!
But the 24-70 is fairly new. I'd rather Nikon give us updated lenses that still have aperture rings and lack AF-S than put VR in not so old lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh, I know my attitude is completely selfish, not to mention that I'm probably dreaming. There are better things to do than update two-year-old lenses. I just want it in this lens because I'm planning on buying it. But when I have the money I'll buy it whether or not they put VR in it.
I hope Nikon's not reading this.Posted 3 years ago # -
No offense Jonny, I think you're terminology is on to something, but I still don't think it'll happen. . .something that wide AND fast will never see VR, and if we do see it, then I'll sell my 17-55 DX 2.8 and buy it, I PROMISE you that much. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
No offense taken. I know I'm probably wrong.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey, one can dream. If it comes by the time I upgrade then great. If it doesnt come, then I guess I will will stick with a faster prime. For me, I am keeping my fingers crossed. I know there are a bunch of people who are hoping for VR on this lens too.
Posted 3 years ago # -
dude, jonny, I would be the FIRST to get inline if any of those (16-35/24-70/35-70, etc.) got VR. . .2-3 stop improvement would be sick, and I just don't see why they don't, the VR module hardly adds THAT much weight. . .oh well, we shall see. . .
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
