Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120
From: scottgregory at mac.com (Scott Gregory)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:15:31 -0500
References: <CD238479.3FA5%mark@rabinergroup.com> <BLU173-DS21E3F7E3C3A5A6E3FE5709B8160@phx.gbl> <2504DDE6-E134-4E34-8372-4920BC054929@mac.com> <5259759B-8EC4-4E5A-99E8-6CC0252E7437@me.com>

I certainly agree. 
And I guess I was lucky with the copy I purchased. 
Scott

On 2013-01-22, at 5:18 PM, Gerry Walden <gerry.walden at me.com> wrote:

> The problem for me Scott is that when you are using a top of the line 
> brand like Nikon you should not count on luck to give you a good lens.
> 
> Gerry
> 
> Gerry Walden
> +44 (0)23 8046 3076 or
> +44 (0)797 287 7932
> www.gwpics.com
> 
> On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:13, Scott Gregory <scottgregory at mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Have a look at the January photo in the 2013 Nikon calendar. Ed Masterson 
>> took it on a D3 with 24-120 Nikkor. An exquisite shot!  I have the first 
>> version that everybody says is awful and you cannot paint them all with 
>> the same brush. I used it last night on my d700 and shots were very 
>> sharp. No issues at all. 
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 2013-01-22, at 10:46 AM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, then, let me clarify.  The lens I have is 15 months old and is the 
>>> AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR  with nano coating and mystical genies 
>>> in it that must be asleep most of the time.  And it was sent back to 
>>> Nikon about 4 months ago for a look to see if they could make it 
>>> actually work.  Came back saying it was up to specs, so I guess it is 
>>> the best they can make it.  I paid $600 or so for my Leica 35/70 F/4 and 
>>> $1300 for this think Nikon calls a G lens.  G does not stand for "Good".
>>> 
>>> Aram
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner
>>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:49 PM
>>> To: Leica Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:02 AM, philippe.amard
>>>>> <philippe.amard at sfr.fr>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The last two lenses I bought came from local  street shops, 
>>>>>> Phalsbourg &
>>>>>> Metz :-)
>>>>>> And the last 2 cameras from the local FNAC.
>>>>>> I find it so frustrating when you can't manipulate the gear prior to
>>>>>> punching the PIN code
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amiti?s
>>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le 17 janv. 13 ? 17:58, Jean-Michel Mertz a ?crit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've read most of the posts concerning ebay and its potential 
>>>>>>> dangers. I
>>>>>>> think I might have an idea. I have been using one single lens (the
>>>>>>> collapsible elmar 50) for a number of weeks now (+ M8)  and I have 
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the conclusion that this pair covers most of my needs. I do have 
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> lens (sum 35 asph) but I seldom use it. I think this is probably
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> many other luggers experience, this successful match between a 
>>>>>>> photog, a
>>>>>>> body and a lens which often results in wonderful pictures being made.
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>> the use HCB made of his IIIg + 50mm. So, do we really need to have 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> many lenses and cameras since we all have our favourite gear? (I'm of
>>>>>>> course not talking of professional photogs!)Just an idea to beat ebay
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> perhaps favour our local dealer - once every five years, for used and
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> expensive gear!Jean-Michel
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailma
>>>>>>> n/listinfo/lug>for
>>>>>>> more information
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the eye. Antoine de Saint Exup?ry in Le Petit Prince.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>>> See
>>>>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman
>>>>>> /listinfo/lug>for
>>>>>> more information
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)
Message from leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)
Message from scottgregory at mac.com (Scott Gregory) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)
Message from gerry.walden at me.com (Gerry Walden) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)