Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have to agree - what john describes seems the best nikon compromise to this day Ph, waiting for the photokina and the R9 diesel ... Le 9 juil. 12 ? 09:11, John McMaster a ?crit : > I think you are wrong ;-) It was touted as what you say and reasonably > pricey but too many users have been disappointed. That is now two > people I > know of on LUG who are unhappy with it.... I think pros will stick > to the > f2.8 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and multiple bodies but even they > struggle for > top performance on the D800(E), so G series (or Zeiss) primes! > > john > > -----Original Message----- > > > Yea that 28-300 is a really a ridiculous monster and he raves about > it its > crazy. Are the specs really that good I don't know I doubt many pros > will > use it. And in comparison the 24-120 seems tame certainly to him. But > compared to any other serious zoom its a bit more extreme. > The 24-120 is roughly the same size as other top zooms though they are > 2.8's. Its a step wider in ratio than a 24 - 85, the zoom that I > most often > use now. And that lens has been totally revamped so its a G lens now > with VR > and ED and the whole bit. Possibly a better lens for me. I do think > you're > going to be reading a lot of real good reviews about the newest > 24-120 and > be seeing a lot of really good people using it and be able to see > those > really good results. I think nikon has put a lot into this lens to > make it > the lens most often sold with a camera body by people who want > something > better than the kit lens. > In other words its Nikons high end kit lens. > Its not going to disappoint. > If people are getting bad results with it lets see them. > Nikon doesn't mess up that often and it learns its lessons. > > - - from my iRabs. > Mark Rabiner > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > >> >> Why does Mr Rockwell not point this out? I think he "raves" about an >> even more extreme zoom (28-300?)...... >> >> john >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> Lets not forget 24 to 120 is a 5X zoom ratio. >> For many discerning users that's way higher than any other lens they >> own or use. >> Traditionally such do-all "idiot lenes" are spurned by serious >> shooters and pros. I do think that at least that the current version >> of this optic has crossed over. It is used by discerning people. >> No its not going to be used for architectural shots and interiors but >> it is used by events photographers and I'm sure photojournalists. >> >> But its not the kind of thing where you're looking at the extreme >> corners wide open or stopped down only one and worrying about it. >> 24mm >> 28mm >> 35mm >> 50mm >> 85mm >> 105mm >> 120mm >> That's a lot of focal lengths, Seven, 7, to all be good at. >> Normally I'd be picking about a zoom with a much more on conservative > ratio. >> Leica made a 28 mm - 70 mm - f/3.5-4.5 What's that zoom ration I >> don't know how to do the math? >> It covers not seven but four of these focal lenghts. >> I bet it stands up to some serious corner pixel peeping maybe even >> wide open. >> >> - - from my iRabs. >> Mark Rabiner >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >>> From: Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 00:22:55 -0400 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >>> >>> Well, as luck would have it, since I had not seen today's updates on >>> the LUG in Barcelona thread, the thread has given rise to one on >>> exactly the lens I'm having a problem with, the new AF-S Nikkor >>> 24-120 mm f/4G lens. I got one to replace the earlier version, which >>> as far as I was concerned was only really weak in the corners, in >>> hopes of better overall performance and an additional stop at the >>> longer > FLs. >>> >>> The corner performance at wide apertures at 24mm is just as >>> horrible >>> as that of its predecessor, with worse chromatic aberration thrown >>> in. >>> The central performance is a little better than that of the earlier >>> version, though contrast is deplorable wide open. I borrowed a copy >>> of the new AF-S Nikkor >>> 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 zoom to compare size (much smaller diameter and >>> length), weight (one-third less), and performance in the context of >>> its price (55% less). >>> >>> At 24mm and f/5.6, in the corners, the cheaper 24-85 blows the '120 >>> away at the same aperture, and gives comparable image quality to the >>> '120 in the center. Its corner images are closer to those of the >>> 24mm >>> f/1.4 prime at 5.6 than to those of the '120. >>> >>> I'll post some examples tomorrow. >>> >>> <howard >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Leowesson wrote: >>> >>>> Which lens? >>>> >>>> Leo Wesson >>>> www.leowesson.com >>>> >>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:55, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm deeply unhappy with an aspect of the performance of a new >>>>> Nikon >>>>> lens I just bought. I suspect (hope) the problem is due to a >>>>> defective lens and is not characteristic of this design, since in >>>>> this respect it is significantly out-performed by a much cheaper >>>>> and largely comparable lens, both lenses being current and of >>>>> recent > design. >>>>> >>>>> Which Nikon forum might be best to air this question in? I don't >>>>> participate in any forum other than the LUG, so I could use some >>>>> guidance. I have submitted my complaint, and some representative >>>>> crops of images to illustrate it, to Nikon tech support as well. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for any suggestions, >>>>> >>>>> <howard >>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information