[Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On one hand just became Rockwell  likes  it doesn't mean its a bad lens.
On the other hand its simple to just google
Nikon 24-120  f4 G 
and read the slew of other reviews one intensive one I mentioned last night
there seems to be a consensus that Nikon's not come out with another blooper
version of the same focal lengths. The thing is Nikon usually gets it right
most of the time. Buying a lens from Nikon is very much NOT a crapshoot.
Leica has had its share of rare bloopers too despite being a much more
premium company.

You want to complain buy a lens with a huge range and start to pixel peep.
Your guaranteed to have stuff to complain about.
On the other hand when I get the new 24-85G VR I can pixel peep like crazy
and complain about not getting 120mm.

Optical construction    17 elements in 13 groups inc. 2x ED and 3x
Aspherical elements and 1x element with Nano Crystal Coat
Number of aperture blades    9 (rounded)
min. focus distance    0,45m (max. magnification ratio 1:4.2)

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff
These guys thought the lens has a lot going for it but was far from great
and how below average resolution.
For a lens with an extreme zoom range you'd expect to read what?

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/
Another review again not a rave but far from pan. Its being considered as a
viable choice. Shooting wide open (f4) at a few different focal lengths
would seem to give less than great results. That's huge news for some
people.
24mm
28mm
35mm
50mm
85mm
105mm
120mm
That's not a small camera bag filled with glass all wrapped up into one
lens. It is a full sized camera bag filled with glass.  Is this  lens used
by people who are into premium resolution and distortion defects? That would
be called having your cake and eating it too. When you get seven lenses into
one its known by the old school as "a huge compromise". You want cutting
edge quality shoot with a prime or a much more conservative zoom.

Its interesting to me that "24-120" is like holding a red flag in front of
many photo buff's face. Why would it be beyond their imagination that years
later a lens with that focal lengh could be introduced which could be much
better made? Why start to pant every time the term "24-120 " is introduced?
Does this make you appear to be a discerning photographer? Is this supposed
to impress people?


- - from my iRabs.
Mark Rabiner


> From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:13:37 +0200
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)
> 
> DK about Rockwell, well I know the painter and I like his work, Norman
> I mean,
> but the 3.5 lens I own is only a light makeshift I use a lot, for the
> want of a better offer from the manufacturer,
> or an R9 diesel that would take my ang?nieux's ...
> 
> I picked up an 18-35 two weeks ago; the feel is fine - ask Daniel- and
> the results far from mediocre, I may have been lucky.
> 
> What is striking is that their sensors are way cool, what you'd expect
> these days,
> yet, the ergonomics of the gear need A LOT of getting used to,
> and the lenses are nothing else than a lottery...
> Pity!
> 
> Dreaming Philippe
> 
> Le 9 juil. 12 ? 20:08, Frank Dernie a ?crit :
> 
>> 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
_______________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.