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'm ok with all you wrote below except that some companies release stuff that is sometimes NOT better than the one they sold before - M5? Mustang? Lumix? Coca-Cola? R3, etc. Amiti?s Philippe Le 9 juil. 12 ? 23:56, Mark Rabiner a ?crit : > Maybe you're thinking, Philippe that I'm thinking that if there 's a > big > difference between the latest version of the nikon 24-120 than I > expect you > to trade yours in for it because of that. And you'd be wrong in > thinking > that. My only expectations are for myself and I tend to not upgrade > my gear > so much. When I buy I lens I marry it. I accept it for better or > worse for > the long haul. For Richer or poorer. Once in blue moon do I start > looking at > around at other women. I mean photo gear. When another lens comes > out better > it seldom interests me. I feel invested in what I have. But I'll in > general > discourage a lot of buying and selling of gear I think its noise. > And I can > only hope that people don't listen to me and I'm sure they don't. > Its not my > name on their credit card its theirs. > My expectations for other people is really interesting as I really > don't > have any. I suppose the only time I could get into an argument is > if you > said something like "there's no big difference between a "pre ASPH 21 > Elmarit and the current asph" or the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 and the 24-120 > f4 as > all logic and common sense and printed test results points to the > obvious. > that when a camera company upgrades a lens seldom do they blow it > and it > comes out worse instead of better. And when the do so its for a > reason and > a good and valid reason and its perhaps if you had the money and > interest > worth looking into. Optical technology has not plateaued out. Its > exciting > what's currently happening in optical lens development. When they re > think a > focal length, Leica, Nikon, Canon whoever it tends to be a whole new > ballgame. If someone wanted to upgrade a lens they had and they had > the > money it would be likely to be worth it. But if they don't care why > should > I? Though if all you and other people saw of your work was 1000 > pixel lengh > jpegs uploaded to a online galleries I cant see how it would make any > difference either way. > > - - from my iRabs. > Mark Rabiner > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > >> From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:06:32 +0200 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information