Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You must get different emails to me, by my count: 1 person asked 1 person found it OK on a couple of shots 1 person tried several examples to get an OK copy 4 people have owned and do not have much good to say about A few insults between contributors... Everybody calls it the current and/or f4 version looking at my emails John > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org [mailto:lug- > bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner > Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2013 7:33 p.m. > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 > > Yea no it hasn't been made clear at all. > > > On 1/21/13 11:52 PM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > > > Everybody in this thread has been talking about the current f4 > > version, and with experience of it. This has come up before with the > > same answers/comments.... > > > > john > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> It just that lens lens has existed in as many configurations as there > >> are days in the week and it makes a big difference if people are > >> specific as to which one they are referring to because they one they > >> came out the following year was the difference between day and night > >> and the one which came out a year after that ditto. > >> > >> The 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR which came out in 2003 is a famous looser. > >> Way soft all over. > >> As to me and many people 2003 feels like the day before yesterday you > >> could easily have this lens and think you were shooting with the > >> current issue. > >> And you can see it sold as if its new now for $669.99 . Used from > >> $340.0. > >> And refurbished from $475.00 on Amazon. (cue Tarzan) people think > >> they are still made. Maybe they are. > >> And there were countless versions before this. > >> > >> The current offering is the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens. > >> Sometimes referred to as (the G lens) A totally re designed optic > >> from the ground up and guess what? Nikon got it more than right this > >> time. > >> This lens came out 22nd September 2010 and has nano nano crystal > coating. > >> This version cost $1,299.95 according to this thing: > >> http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera- > >> Lenses/2193/AF-S-NI > >> KKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html > >> Or > >> http://tinyurl.com/az7ev3x > >> > >> So when people say "my Nikon 24-120 was good/bad" its rather > meaningless. > >> Its like saying "My meal in little Italy was good/bad" you have to > >> say which restaurant and what time of the day it was. And what you > ordered. > >> And what the wait persons name was. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 1/21/13 10:52 PM, "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Here are a few things I don't like about mine. > >>> > >>> It is not well made. There is a lot of play in the lens barrel, > >>> especially when zoomed out a bit. When it focuses, you can see the > >>> image jump around in the viewfinder. Just very sloppy. > >>> > >>> If you focus on something at a certain focal length, then zoom in or > >>> out, the focus shifts. It is not really what I would call a zoom, > >>> but rather some variable focus lens from the 70's. Makes it just > >>> about impossible to use for night photography. Nothing to focus on, > >>> so either prefocus in daylight at infinity, or use live view to > >>> focus on a bright star, but the every time you recompose by zooming, > >>> you need to > >> refocus. > >>> > >>> The zoom creeps very easily, so makes the above even harder if you > >>> tried to prefocus at a specific focal length, as it can change so > >>> easily. > >>> > >>> At times I bet some very sharp photos, but most of the time I let it > >>> sit in the camera bag and use the Leica 35-70/4 unless I need > >>> autofocus or focal length greater than about 90mm, because I can > >>> easily crop the Leica to get a sharper photo than the Nikon at 120 > >>> > >>> And this lens is suppose to be gold banded and much better than the > >>> original 24-120. > >>> > >>> I sent mine back to Nikon to have it tightened up and it came back > >>> just about the same. > >>> > >>> Aram > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Howard Ritter > >>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:37 PM > >>> To: Leica Users Group > >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 > >>> > >>> Jayanand< > >>> > >>> May I ask what you didn't like about that new 24-120? > >>> Other than the size, weight, and being less sharp toward the corners > >>> at all focal lengths than the new (non-gold-banded) 24-85? > >>> > >>> <howard > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj > >>> <jayanand at gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I generally check out all lenses for at least a couple of hours of > >>>> use before I buy - the only one I bought on impulse recently, > >>>> without testing, the Nikon 24-120 f4 ended up being resold in a > >>>> couple of months. There is a lesson there...(-: > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Jayanand > >>>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Mail was checked for spam by the Freeware Edition of CleanMail. > The Freeware Edition is free for personal and non-commercial use. > You can remove this notice by purchasing a full license!