Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]+90% of my photography is Leica rangefinder..... john ________________________________________ Agreed! :-) I'm just dismayed that so much Nikon and Canon is happening out there, and the rangefinder renaissance is sort of fizzling out. Jeffery Sent from my iPad Jeffery L. Smith New Orleans, Louisiana USA On Jul 9, 2012, at 19:20, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > This thread is clearly Nikon and OT ;-) Unlike another recent one.... > > john > ________________________________________ > > > This is probably not the time or place, but I really like my 21/2.8 > Kobalux LTM. Great for those available light landscapes when all you have > is your Leica IIIf (trying to get back on Leica here...when I want to know > about Nikon, I can check out Ken "PayPal" Rockwell). > > Sent from my iJeff > > Jeffery L. Smith > New Orleans, Louisiana > USA > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 18:51, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> This guy, DOUGLAS DIETIKER for landscapes tested it out and couldn't >> figure >> out what all the fuss was about it worked for him perfectly. >> http://theuntamedlandscape.blogspot.com/2010/11/nikon-24-120-review-for-land >> scape.html or >> http://tinyurl.com/7p56ako >> Its a rather involved test. He uses the lens now and carries around less >> glass on a shoot as a result. >> >> - - from my iRabs. >> Mark Rabiner >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >>> From: Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:05:23 -0700 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >>> >>> I have been using the 24-120/4 for about 11 months now. I can't say I am >>> thrilled with the results, though I like the reach. I was experiencing >>> some >>> mechanical problems with the lens. If I grabbed the front ring and >>> wobbled >>> it, there was a lot of play and it did not improve it I racked the lens >>> in >>> to the 24mm position. And while walking around, the lens developed >>> quite a >>> bit of creep from when I first got it. I sent it to Nikon for a look. I >>> also had them look at the focus, because it does not behave like any Zoom >>> lens I have ever had. If I am in focus at 24mm, and I zoom out to some >>> other focal length, the focus shifts. And vice versa. It was terribly >>> frustrating in Yosemite a few months ago when shooting the moonbow at >>> midnight. I could never get the focus correct, so I slapped on the Leica >>> 35-70, set it to infinity, and the day was saved, albeit at a shorter >>> focal >>> length. >>> >>> I sent the lens back to Nikon and just got it back a few weeks ago. They >>> said everything was just fine. No problems. The must have lubed it a >>> bit, >>> as the lens barrel does not wobble or creep as much as it did. I suspect >>> that will return as I break it in again. It still focus shifts >>> dramatically >>> when you zoom in or out. I guess it is designed that way. An old >>> variable >>> focus design in a new lens. >>> >>> As far as image quality, it is OK, but not what I would expect from a >>> $1200 >>> lens. Been spoiled by my 35-70/4 Leica R zoom. that lens is a very nice >>> lens. Of course, it is a 2x zoom vs a 5x zoom, so I would expect it to >>> be >>> better. But it also is in focus at whatever the focusing ring says, and >>> if >>> you zoom in and out the focus does not change. A true, high quality >>> zoom. >>> >>> Aram >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> >>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:08 AM >>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >>>> >>>>