Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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/