The white spots/artifacts inside the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens are just fine

Nikon USA and Nikon Europe published a note about potential white spots/artifacts inside the Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens:

The AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens has black shielding paint applied to the edge of specific lens surfaces to block unnecessary light reflections. Some tiny air bubbles will be trapped between the painted light-shielding portions of the lens. As a result, white spots may become visible in a very confined area around the edge of the lens element depending on the angle of view and light condition.

The white spots:artifacts inside he Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens are just fine

The white spots are located outside of the area through which light passes when images are captured and so have no effect on the quality of the recorded image.

Please continue to use your lens without concern.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • T.I.M

    I had 2 of that lens, I did not like it.
    I prefer the AF-s 28-70mm f/2.8 or the AF-s 24-120mm f/4 VR

    • Jim Huang

      Can you please explain why you don’t like it? Is it because of the size, weight….etc?

      • Lex Cross

        It didn’t focus properly when mounted on his (imaginary) D900. And it was way more front heavy than even an 800mm on a J5

        • Joe Schmitt

          I have the new 24-70 VR model…upgraded from the regular 24-70. Love the new model. Weight feels great, focuses quick, very quiet and sharp. No issues with the lens at all and the VR really does help in low light situations. Using it on a D810 and D4S. The VR has come in handy when my wife is shooting since the heavier cameras tire her out quickly.

          • Tim Potter


            Is the f/2.8E version worth the extra $600 (33% more than the f/2.8G)? That may be a tough question to answer but do you regret paying the premium for the f/2.8E?


            • Joe Schmitt

              I don’t regret paying the upgraded price. I love the feel of the lens. The focus and zoom rings are nice and smooth. Feel is very nice. I don’t get into pixel peeping but I’ve been very happy with the sharpness. Detail on portraits is great. Bokeh…awesome. And VR is surprisingly quiet. On my 70-200mm f/2.8, the VR is kind of loud and definitely noticeable. The VR on the 24-70 is nearly silent. No clicking noise. So better feel, sharp results, quiet VR…yeah I’m happy with the upgrade. I guess as time goes on I’ll see if the new lens coating helps keep the dust away but these are views so far.

            • Tim Potter

              Thanks for giving me your opinion. I’m buying a 24-70mm f/2.8 for the first time.

            • Joe Schmitt

              I don’t think you can go wrong with the VR model. I share my gear with my wife when she feels like shooting and since a D810 with grip and 24-70 can get pretty heavy for her, the VR definitely helps her. The new model is slightly heavier than the old model…but what’s a few more ounces? For any weight concerns, I use a Black Rapid strap to let the camera hang when it’s not used. I’m not a full time pro photographer but I value nailing the shot when I do have a paying gig and the VR helps ensure that. Sometimes you’re shooting in low natural light or you can’t use flash…picking up an extra 3-4 stops with the VR is huge. Plus, not everyone is good at being as still as possible for the shot. I think the VR is the biggest part of the upgrade. Is the old 24-70 good? Absolutely. I had that lens. Do I think the 24-70 with VR is better? Definitely. No regrets in purchasing that lens!

          • NicP

            Added weight, to an already “all around” pro heavy lens, feels great? You must be in great shape.

            • kbb

              If carrying around an object weighing four pounds now qualifies as being in “great shape”, then things have changed in the land of the cheeseburger.

            • NicP

              You missed the point. Its not the weight but the added weight. Lets say my job forces me to carry a D3 and 500 f4 at X grams, then a new model of lens comes out and its more grams, if I wouldnt complain or even if I liked it more then what that means.

            • Joe Schmitt

              I was willing to take on the extra weight for a newer lens with more features. I’m sorry you’re not fit enough to do that I guess. Geez.

            • NicP

              Well I guess Im not, I barely hold camera after 12-13 hours continuous shooting.

            • Joe Schmitt

              So the additional 6.7 ounces of the new VR lens would kill you? Like they say, you have to give some a$$ to get some a$$. The new lens has added benefits with that additional weight. You make it seem like Nikon DOUBLED the weight of the lens and that’s clearly not the case. If you’re doing “12-13 hours continuous shooting”, I would recommend a monopod or a Black Rapid strap to handle the weight at times. ANY body/lens combo is going to be heavy after that length of time.

            • NicP

              Sir you seem to enjoy your lens thats good for you and I believe its better than “g” version. Lastly I’d like to see the sale numbers and how many will rush to upgrade their older model ( which did huge numbers in sales ) in six months period. I think Nikon missed the point of replacing a lens. Hope they make another thinking again ( big expectation) for a non VR light version.

          • David

            I love the new model as well. I always felt the other model (at least my copy) wasn’t up to snuff. It wasn’t as crisp as my other Nikon lenses particularly when compared with the 70-200mm and the 14-24mm not to mention the primes. Sold my old model, got this new model (yes bit the bullet on the price and waited through the release delays) and couldn’t be happier. Finally the workhorse lens is solid and with great images. I didn’t care much about the VR but having it is just fine. Awesome lens so far. No regrets.

        • T.I.M

          I use the 24-120mm on my D900

      • T.I.M

        too much distortion at 24mm and a lot of vignetting (falloff) at all focals.

        • Why did you have 2 of the lens? Vinjetting and distortion doesn’t really change much between samples.

        • Markus

          ??? The distortion of the 24-120@24 is quite heavy. I can not imagine you prefer this over the 24-70 ?!
          OK, the 28-70 is a nice lens. The larger diameter is quite good for People having slightly larger Hands than those jpanese people.

          According to the MTF, the new 24-70 should be muich better in the edges compare to the old one .. is it true?

          • T.I.M

            I own 13 lenses but the 24-120mm is my only zoom lens.
            I use it as my “do it all lens” when I can’t carry more than one lens.
            Yes the 24-120mm have distortion but it can focus very close and the VR made up for the “slow” f/4 aperture.
            And you can have the 24-120mm f/4 VR new for only $700
            I would not exchange it for the 24-70mm f/2.8

            • Emanuele Aymerich

              I agree whit you: I have sold my 24-70 after I bought the 24-120, for the same reasons

            • Markus

              OK! I understand. f4 nowadays should not be an issue anymore (thanks to VR). Another nice thing should be the weight (the 24-120 has about half the weight of the 24-70).

              According to the MTF charts, it should be much worse than the 24-70 ! I would be interesting how it performs in real life?! Is it as weak in the corners as the ‘old’ 24-70 at 24mm?

              I have several old Nikon lenses (such as the 20-35 and the 2.8 80-200 ED (3rd generation after the 2 push-pull zooms still without AF-S). AT least stopped down they perform quite pretty on my 800e.

            • T.I.M

              I find the 24-120mm very sharp, but to be honest the only time I use it for professional work is at weddings during church/diner parts, so theses pictures don’t request the sharpness I need for the portrait pictures, I use my AF-s 200mm f/2 for that.
              Also I use the falloff reduction feature on my D800 cameras, it works pretty well with the 24-120mm.
              I did not use that feature when I was using the 24-70mm f/2.8 on a D700 body.

    • EGGZZ

      I had 425 of that lens. sold them all except 1

    • Boris Cheung


  • Cue panic and outrage.

    • Riley Escobar

      Nah, Nikon owners are now so jaded after all the QC snafus of the last couple of years 🙂

  • Nikos Charpantidis

    is there any photo to see how it looks like?

  • Beso

    At least Nikon gets a +1 for being consistent with their QC.

    • fanboy fagz

      haha they are elite with that. at least that.

  • nwcs

    At least Nikon is ahead of the irrational fears this time. So I give them that.

    • Eric Calabros

      Sure they are reading DPR, FM and maybe even NR
      Hello guys, you see me? 🙂

  • Wesley

    Nikon…how about creating a video about this instead to inform your buyers.

    PR cover up?

  • Spy Black

    Move along now, nothing to see here…

  • Wishing all fellow Nikon fans and hecklers a Happy [NR] Thanksgiving.

  • treacle

    Look at that, Nikon recreated the wheel with no innovation, and still can spot obvious issues before going live.

  • jojo

    “My new BMW has bubbles in the paintwork on the outside of the passenger door. It is outside my field of vision and doesn’t affect the performance of the car.”??? Oh, and yes I am a Nikon user.

    • true

      damn …

  • Mato34

    What!!!??? New item from Nikon and all we get is a fake issue??? Even not a single recall nor firmware correction!! Come on Nikon! What a shame…

  • reductron

    If you boil the lens, the air bubbles escape as if they never were trapped.

  • I would think that if you’re going to pay a premium price, you would expect premium quality.

    • ITN

      It is a lens designed for making photographs. Jewellery which are meant to be pretty and nothing else are sold in a different department or store.

      • My Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 are incredibly pretty. Historically, I suspect that pretty, well designed lenses with no mold, cleaning marks, and internal specks hold their value much better.

        • ITN

          I buy lenses to make photographs with them. If Nikon spends any extra time making them pretty to look at with no effect on image quality then I consider it a misuse of funds and I object to such waste of resources. The same effort that is used in prettifying lenses could be used to make the optical performance better. I prefer Nikon to use their resources (which I and other photographers fund with our purchases) on aspects of lens design which actually result in better quality images, not waste it on unimportant cosmetics.

          • You are certainly correct from the big picture point of view but let me approach this a different way. In 1999 I wanted to get serious about photographing pro surfing but couldn’t afford the long, white Canon lenses at the time. So I went looking for a long, manual focus Nikon lens. I ended up with the choice between two 1,200mm F11 Nikon lenses. One was absolutely perfect for $4,500 and the other had a tiny little nick on the perimeter of the front element and I was able to buy it for $2,800 dollars. I also believe a few imperfections do not affect the optical quality of the lens and I was able to save $1,700. BTW, someone saw my lens on my web site last year and paid me $2,700.

  • Aldo

    Problem here is that ‘photographers’ spend more time looking AT the lens than THROUGH the lens…

  • whisky

    the 70-200mm f2.8 had similar QC issues. Nikon fixed these fairly quickly as too many people were sending these lenses back.

  • Back to top