Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)
From: philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:58:50 +0200
References: <CC20D446.20DDF%mark@rabinergroup.com>

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


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!))