Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ask Daniel, it is exactly why I bought this SH 18-35 - whatever the results, at least it starts with feeling like a lens :-) AMiti?s Philippe Le 10 juil. 12 ? 00:32, Mark Rabiner a ?crit : > And the 90 tele Elmarit was worse than the plane Elmarit which came > before > it. Compactness as a reason for a new version is always something > which > needs a real look at as many times its at the expense of quality. I > hope not > thought because I feel when they get around to start looking at their > engineering with a more compact approach I'm real interested. But I > see a > lot of what I feel is sloppy engineering of bulky heavy gear which > they rush > out with with the idea that they'll just get you to buy another one > when > they get around to putting some real thought into it and make it as > compact > as it really should have been when it first came out. > > - - 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:14:19 +0200 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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