Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/27

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

Subject: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120
From: images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:52:15 -0500
References: <mailman.730.1359328936.89460.lug@leica-users.org> <d8d99b98-6555-4c4c-9fdd-da96bd13878e@store0.postmaster.co.uk>

Welcome, John. Are you thinking about a Leica rangefinder? If you have
never used one before, it would be a good idea to borrow or rent one to try
before you buy. They are not for everybody. I absolutely love my M9 and MM
which I use with prime Leica lenses. They as great for street photography,
people, documentary,and landscape photography - not so great for sports or
wildlife!

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Tina

On Sunday, January 27, 2013, John Owlett <owl at postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> May I use this thread, on which I do have a little knowledge, to emerge
from lurking and introduce myself?
>
> I am a dinosaur amateur photographer, having neither digital camera nor
cellphone.  First love was a Rolleiflex TLR; more recently manual-focus
Nikon has been the main medium.
>
> But the World turns, and digital cannot be avoided forever.  Which brings
me here.
>
> Mindful of the 40 lp/mm limit on amateur photography (with a prime lens,
a lightweight tripod, and 160 ASA colour print film) only a full-frame
sensor will do.  And full-frame DSLRs are heavy: I want something as light
as the 25 oz of my F3/T; but from Nikon, even the D800 weighs 35 oz with
battery and memory card.
>
> Hence the attraction of a 21 oz digital Leica M rangefinder.
>
> Needless to say, if anyone has any information or opinion they think will
be useful, I?d be most grateful.
>
> On Wednesday 23 January 2013, at 01:18 EST, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
>> To me it really would not make sense for a company I have to say I
certainly
>> respect, Nikon to have their step up lens (from a basic kit lens) be a
>> looser. If they can make a bottom of the line lens be a solid performer
then
>> why would the totally blow it for people who want to spend some real
extra
>> money and get some glass with more functionality.?
>
> I?m not sure that the 24-120 really is a step up lens.  Granted, you can
use it as one, but I see it as being a specialist lens for people who want
to use just one lens from wide-angle to portrait length.  (For which it is
a far better choice than the 28-300.)
>
> If someone wants to step up from a 24-85 kit lens, I would hope they
would consider using two zooms: adding the new 70-200 f/4 to a 24-85 kit
lens would be a huge improvement.
>
> If they decide they want a better standard zoom, then the 24-70 f/2.8 is
far better than a 24-85 kit lens, and only 50% more expensive than the
24-120.
>
> If 50% more is too much, then using prime lenses would also be far better
than a 24-85 kit lens; a set of three f/1.8s -- 35m, 50mm, and 85mm --
would cost significantly less than a 24-120.
>
> If, after all that, they decide that their needs are best met by a
24-120, then fair enough.  It?s a specialist lens aimed at specialists like
them.
>
> Mark also wrote:
>
>> If you cant shoot Leica than Nikon is not such a terrible way to fly.
>
> Quite so.  Though I am considering the converse: if you cannot lift a
Nikon DSLR system, then Leica might be the best way to fly.
>
> Later,
>
> Dr Owl
>
> ----------------------------
> John Owlett, Southampton, UK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

-- 
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com


In reply to: Message from owl at postmaster.co.uk (John Owlett) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)