Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No Mark, I just happen to own and use the old version that came for free when I bought the body. I'm satisfied with it so long as : a) I don't want to send big bucks on a hypothetically better "new" lens when I loose yet another half a stop, b) it is light and versatile as correctly stated by you c) I tend to accept a compromise when I know it is one, and this one is a massive one :-) Would I need to impress people I'd take another hobby, and I have never pretended I was a "discerning photographer" nor a deserving one BTW :-( Photography is my pleasure and the gear I buy I use, I also share my results, some people like what I do. Others don't, I don't resent this, at all :-) I don't care a damn how many elements a lens has, nor what coating has been used. Yet I like to know what the lens can achieve, from experience; that's all I need and want to know. Testing is believing, and lusting is out of my frame of mind except for a joke, ask Geoff. A lens or a camera is a tool, I have pleasure with them, or I dump them. Right now, I'm sticking with my gotten free infamous f3.5 24-120mm :-) Amiti?s Philippe Le 9 juil. 12 ? 22:07, Mark Rabiner a ?crit : > On one hand just became Rockwell likes it doesn't mean its a bad > lens. > On the other hand its simple to just google > Nikon 24-120 f4 G > and read the slew of other reviews one intensive one I mentioned > last night > there seems to be a consensus that Nikon's not come out with another > blooper > version of the same focal lengths. The thing is Nikon usually gets > it right > most of the time. Buying a lens from Nikon is very much NOT a > crapshoot. > Leica has had its share of rare bloopers too despite being a much more > premium company. > > You want to complain buy a lens with a huge range and start to pixel > peep. > Your guaranteed to have stuff to complain about. > On the other hand when I get the new 24-85G VR I can pixel peep like > crazy > and complain about not getting 120mm. > > Optical construction 17 elements in 13 groups inc. 2x ED and 3x > Aspherical elements and 1x element with Nano Crystal Coat > Number of aperture blades 9 (rounded) > min. focus distance 0,45m (max. magnification ratio 1:4.2) > > http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff > These guys thought the lens has a lot going for it but was far from > great > and how below average resolution. > For a lens with an extreme zoom range you'd expect to read what? > > http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/ > Another review again not a rave but far from pan. Its being > considered as a > viable choice. Shooting wide open (f4) at a few different focal > lengths > would seem to give less than great results. That's huge news for some > people. > 24mm > 28mm > 35mm > 50mm > 85mm > 105mm > 120mm > That's not a small camera bag filled with glass all wrapped up into > one > lens. It is a full sized camera bag filled with glass. Is this > lens used > by people who are into premium resolution and distortion defects? > That would > be called having your cake and eating it too. When you get seven > lenses into > one its known by the old school as "a huge compromise". You want > cutting > edge quality shoot with a prime or a much more conservative zoom. > > Its interesting to me that "24-120" is like holding a red flag in > front of > many photo buff's face. Why would it be beyond their imagination > that years > later a lens with that focal lengh could be introduced which could > be much > better made? Why start to pant every time the term "24-120 " is > introduced? > Does this make you appear to be a discerning photographer? Is this > supposed > to impress people? > > > - - from my iRabs. > Mark Rabiner > > >> From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group >> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:13:37 +0200 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >> >> DK about Rockwell, well I know the painter and I like his work, >> Norman >> I mean, >> but the 3.5 lens I own is only a light makeshift I use a lot, for the >> want of a better offer from the manufacturer, >> or an R9 diesel that would take my ang?nieux's ... >> >> I picked up an 18-35 two weeks ago; the feel is fine - ask Daniel- >> and >> the results far from mediocre, I may have been lucky. >> >> What is striking is that their sensors are way cool, what you'd >> expect >> these days, >> yet, the ergonomics of the gear need A LOT of getting used to, >> and the lenses are nothing else than a lottery... >> Pity! >> >> Dreaming Philippe >> >> Le 9 juil. 12 ? 20:08, Frank Dernie a ?crit : >> >>> I understand the new f4 version of the 24-120 is no better quality >>> than its predecessor the f3.5-f5.6 which you dislike so much, though >>> I have not tried one myself (I was put off by so many disappointed >>> owners posting on the 'net). How many really disappointing pictures >>> did you take with your f3.5-f5.6 before coming to the conclusion it >>> was rubbish? >>> I -know- that half-wit Rockwell slags it off, but most of what he >>> writes is a load of old tosh, so that means nothing to me. >>> Frank D >>> >>> On 9 Jul, 2012, at 08:31, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>> >>>> I think more pros well use the 24-85 but plenty will use the >>>> 24-120. >>>> Depending on their needs. >>>> If they need a more conservative better corrected optic they'll get >>>> that >>>> one. >>>> If they are just shooting people and like the range they'll get the >>>> 24-120. >>>> I wont know till the time comes but I like 600 bucks for a better >>>> corrected >>>> lens better than 1300 for a less corrected. >>>> The former is just out and I'd forgotten about it. >>>> >>>> I will say one thing >>>> I'd gotten quite used to using a 24-85 on a D200 DX body and I >>>> liked the >>>> reach. Now that I'm using it on a full frame D700 I'm no longer >>>> getting that >>>> reach. The 24-120 gives it back to me. Plus on the wide side two >>>> more focal >>>> lenghs. That sound real good to me. But not the weight and the >>>> bulk. And the >>>> price. >>>> I'd like to try one in hand first. See if it likes me. Which one. >>>> >>>> - - from my iRabs. >>>> Mark Rabiner > _______________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information