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 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 >>>>