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: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:41:32 -0500

Philippe Amard posted a shot he did with I think current 24-120 with I
forgot which body on the lug in our last a few months ago heated discussion
of the focal length range in Nikon. He shot it at 120 and then he said
cropped a bunch. It was clear as a bell and had an airplane flying over
head. There was a water. I think a boat.... Impressed the hell outa most
everybody here and pretty much ended the thread with the idea that the lens
actually does more than produce a viable image.


On 1/22/13 3:13 PM, "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




-- 
Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/




Replies: Reply from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)
In reply to: Message from scottgregory at mac.com (Scott Gregory) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)