Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The lens is meant for AF Aram ... Zoom in or out, the AF does the rest for you, well should. Ph Le 10 juil. 12 ? 01:05, Aram Langhans a ?crit : > I have been using the 24-120/4 for about 11 months now. I can't say > I am thrilled with the results, though I like the reach. I was > experiencing some mechanical problems with the lens. If I grabbed > the front ring and wobbled it, there was a lot of play and it did > not improve it I racked the lens in to the 24mm position. And while > walking around, the lens developed quite a bit of creep from when I > first got it. I sent it to Nikon for a look. I also had them look > at the focus, because it does not behave like any Zoom lens I have > ever had. If I am in focus at 24mm, and I zoom out to some other > focal length, the focus shifts. And vice versa. It was terribly > frustrating in Yosemite a few months ago when shooting the moonbow > at midnight. I could never get the focus correct, so I slapped on > the Leica 35-70, set it to infinity, and the day was saved, albeit > at a shorter focal length. > > I sent the lens back to Nikon and just got it back a few weeks ago. > They said everything was just fine. No problems. The must have > lubed it a bit, as the lens barrel does not wobble or creep as much > as it did. I suspect that will return as I break it in again. It > still focus shifts dramatically when you zoom in or out. I guess it > is designed that way. An old variable focus design in a new lens. > > As far as image quality, it is OK, but not what I would expect from > a $1200 lens. Been spoiled by my 35-70/4 Leica R zoom. that lens > is a very nice lens. Of course, it is a 2x zoom vs a 5x zoom, so I > would expect it to be better. But it also is in focus at whatever > the focusing ring says, and if you zoom in and out the focus does > not change. A true, high quality zoom. > > Aram > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:08 AM > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) > >> 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/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information