[Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)

[john at chiaroscuro.co.nz (John McMaster)]

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
>>>