Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All shot at f11 on a tripod, my 100mm APO-Macro is only "35mm" lens I have shot with at f11!! Yesterday on a reasonably bright winters day at lunchtime I was shooting 1/1000th f1.4 or equivalent. That would mean 1/15th at f11, but I was using the M9 at 160ASA and the D800E best quality is at 100ASA so nearer to 1/8th. Yes it has VR but things can move..... So you either up the ASA and lose quality or live near the equator ;-) Can you use it inside without studio lighting? I guess his tests tie in with what he shoots, but what sharpness do you expect to find in a stone fire surround compared to text or something with definable edges? Also that was D3X 24MP, the D800(E) will be more critical. I was not wowed by what he showed, huge distortion (correctable?) and the bag shots did not inspire for quality given it was f11. There again, I use Leica ;-) john ________________________________________ 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/ >> >>