[Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120

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

The last time this was brought up was with a similar list of people all 
talking about the current f4.0 version, here are some snippets from this 
thread to show which lens was being talked about:

17/01
the Nikon 24-120 f4 ended up being resold in a couple of  months

19/01
May I ask what you didn't like about that new 24-120?

I hated that lens, could not get a decent result either on the D700 or D800E 
for the most part, most shots were soft and had an unfocused look about them 
- might have been an individual bad specimen, I don't know

This is the latest version we are all talking about.

20/01

I had the same experience with that lens and the one that preceded it.

I would personally not touch that lens again. Mine was one of the worse 
lenses I have ever used.

The current Nikon 24-120 is made in Thailand and QC from the Nikon Thai 
factory is a concern.  I went through several pieces of this lens before 
accepting a good one.

I tried the latest version last October, and it was quite nice with good 
resolution across the frame.

And this lens is suppose to be gold banded and much better than the original 
24-120.



Or is it moving goalposts? They now have to say when/where bought and show 
images rather than just say that they do not rate it?

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Found what? Nobodies saying WHEN they owned the lens and we're not
> seeing any images. Nobody has given a hint on this lens they used a ways
> back when that was!  Nobody has clearly defined theirs as a G f4.
> Its a lens they used a while back and didn't like.
> That's why I did my post.
> The last time we talked about this it was not that many months ago and most
> people admitted  when they checked they had the previous disastrous
> version.
> Now all of a sudden every one had bought and sold a lens which came out
> the day before yesterday.
> Where's the pix its as if Lightroom had not been invented yet or Bridge?
> 
> I have a database by the way which tells me what date I got each lens I 
> ever
> got its serial number what I paid for it where I got it from and what its
> mothers maiden name was.
> Also I can do a search in my Bridge in effect database and see how many 
> pix I
> took with it an when and make a quick jpeg of one to show for myself.
> 
> The F4 G lens came out 2 years and 4 months ago.
> Bought and sold and all evidence lost.
> Not buying it.
> 
> 
> On 1/22/13 1:38 AM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >> bounces+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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>