Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Have a look at the January photo in the 2013 Nikon calendar. Ed Masterson took it on a D3 with 24-120 Nikkor. An exquisite shot! I have the first version that everybody says is awful and you cannot paint them all with the same brush. I used it last night on my d700 and shots were very sharp. No issues at all. Scott On 2013-01-22, at 10:46 AM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, then, let me clarify. The lens I have is 15 months old and is the > AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR with nano coating and mystical genies in > it that must be asleep most of the time. And it was sent back to Nikon > about 4 months ago for a look to see if they could make it actually work. > Came back saying it was up to specs, so I guess it is the best they can > make it. I paid $600 or so for my Leica 35/70 F/4 and $1300 for this > think Nikon calls a G lens. G does not stand for "Good". > > Aram > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:49 PM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 > > It just that lens lens has existed in as many configurations as there are > days in the week and it makes a big difference if people are specific as to > which one they are referring to because they one they came out the > following year was the difference between day and night and the one which > came out a year after that ditto. > > The 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR which came out in 2003 is a famous looser. Way > soft all over. > As to me and many people 2003 feels like the day before yesterday you could > easily have this lens and think you were shooting with the current issue. > And you can see it sold as if its new now for $669.99 . Used from $340.0. > And refurbished from $475.00 on Amazon. (cue Tarzan) > people think they are still made. Maybe they are. > And there were countless versions before this. > > The current offering is the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens. > Sometimes referred to as (the G lens) > A totally re designed optic from the ground up and guess what? Nikon got it > more than right this time. > This lens came out 22nd September 2010 and has nano nano crystal coating. > This version cost $1,299.95 according to this thing: > http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2193/AF-S-NI > KKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html > Or > http://tinyurl.com/az7ev3x > > So when people say "my Nikon 24-120 was good/bad" its rather meaningless. > Its like saying "My meal in little Italy was good/bad" you have to say > which > restaurant and what time of the day it was. And what you ordered. > And what the wait persons name was. > > > > > > > > > On 1/21/13 10:52 PM, "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Here are a few things I don't like about mine. >> >> It is not well made. There is a lot of play in the lens barrel, especially >> when zoomed out a bit. When it focuses, you can see the image jump around >> in the viewfinder. Just very sloppy. >> >> If you focus on something at a certain focal length, then zoom in or out, >> the focus shifts. It is not really what I would call a zoom, but rather >> some variable focus lens from the 70's. Makes it just about impossible to >> use for night photography. Nothing to focus on, so either prefocus in >> daylight at infinity, or use live view to focus on a bright star, but the >> every time you recompose by zooming, you need to refocus. >> >> The zoom creeps very easily, so makes the above even harder if you tried >> to >> prefocus at a specific focal length, as it can change so easily. >> >> At times I bet some very sharp photos, but most of the time I let it sit >> in >> the camera bag and use the Leica 35-70/4 unless I need autofocus or focal >> length greater than about 90mm, because I can easily crop the Leica to >> get a >> sharper photo than the Nikon at 120 >> >> And this lens is suppose to be gold banded and much better than the >> original >> 24-120. >> >> I sent mine back to Nikon to have it tightened up and it came back just >> about the same. >> >> Aram >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Howard Ritter >> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:37 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 >> >> Jayanand? >> >> May I ask what you didn't like about that new 24-120? >> Other than the size, weight, and being less sharp toward the corners at >> all >> focal lengths than the new (non-gold-banded) 24-85? >> >> ?howard >> >> >> On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I generally check out all lenses for at least a couple of hours of use >>> before I buy - the only one I bought on impulse recently, without >>> testing, >>> the Nikon 24-120 f4 ended up being resold in a couple of months. There is >>> a >>> lesson there...(-: >>> Cheers >>> Jayanand >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:02 AM, philippe.amard >>> <philippe.amard at sfr.fr>wrote: >>> >>>> The last two lenses I bought came from local street shops, Phalsbourg & >>>> Metz :-) >>>> And the last 2 cameras from the local FNAC. >>>> I find it so frustrating when you can't manipulate the gear prior to >>>> punching the PIN code >>>> >>>> Amiti?s >>>> Philippe >>>> >>>> Le 17 janv. 13 ? 17:58, Jean-Michel Mertz a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've read most of the posts concerning ebay and its potential dangers. >>>>> I >>>>> think I might have an idea. I have been using one single lens (the >>>>> collapsible elmar 50) for a number of weeks now (+ M8) and I have come >>>>> to >>>>> the conclusion that this pair covers most of my needs. I do have >>>>> another >>>>> lens (sum 35 asph) but I seldom use it. I think this is probably >>>>> something >>>>> many other luggers experience, this successful match between a photog, >>>>> a >>>>> body and a lens which often results in wonderful pictures being made. >>>>> See >>>>> the use HCB made of his IIIg + 50mm. So, do we really need to have that >>>>> many lenses and cameras since we all have our favourite gear? (I'm of >>>>> course not talking of professional photogs!)Just an idea to beat ebay >>>>> and >>>>> perhaps favour our local dealer - once every five years, for used and >>>>> less >>>>> expensive gear!Jean-Michel >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See >>>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailma >>>>> n/listinfo/lug>for >>>>> more information >>>> >>>> One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to >>>> the eye. Antoine de Saint Exup?ry in Le Petit Prince. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See >>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<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 > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information