Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My main issue is not sharpness, though sometimes it does not behave very well. My main issue it the focus shift when zooming in manual focus mode, and the wobble of the lens barrel. Shoddy workmanship/design.... Aram -----Original Message----- From: Scott Gregory Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:13 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120 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