Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Le 23 janv. 13 ? 04:41, Mark Rabiner a ?crit : > 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. > > Mark, I presume this is the one shot you're refering to (thanks for remembering it BTW) http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Barcelona+2009_001/Surfin_+Barcelona-1297.jpg.html As to the crop and processing, here is the previous frame on the roll, FF and unedited, straight from the tank. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Playground/Out+in+the+Wild-1296.jpg.html (click large to see what the obvious limits of the lens are, notably micro contrast) Sometimes it looks sharp, http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Les+Gens/Enigma-5496-2.jpg.html but the bokeh and distortion are so-so as with every nikon lens I've seen through... Oly ZD glass performed much better in all respects; it was just the sensor that triggered my drifting back to nikon. Morals: I own the lousiest of all 24-120's but I won't complain as it was gifted with the D700, and I use it for its convenient range and weight. OTT Alice and I should be NYC third week of Feb, so on top of meeting us if it pleases you, I could lend the lens to you for a live test. Amiti?s Philippe > 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/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.