Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/27

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

Subject: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120
From: kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:28:21 -0600
References: <mailman.730.1359328936.89460.lug@leica-users.org> <d8d99b98-6555-4c4c-9fdd-da96bd13878e@store0.postmaster.co.uk>

I think it just depends on your needs.  I need longer lenses, high ISO's and 
autofocus, so the DSLR is the only game in town for me.  Yes, the Canon 5D 
MkII and three big 2.8 L zooms can be a PITA to lug around, not to mention 
the tripod.  I do have a Panasonic GF-1 and two primes that weigh almost 
nothing, and I use it when circumstances permit, which is not that often.  
If you print, I believe you will find the digital prints are quite a bit 
superior to your 35mm darkroom prints, though the digital learning curve can 
be daunting and costly.  Good luck!

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org 
[mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of John 
Owlett
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:37 PM
To: lug at leica-users.org
Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120

May I use this thread, on which I do have a little knowledge, to emerge from 
lurking and introduce myself?

I am a dinosaur amateur photographer, having neither digital camera nor 
cellphone.  First love was a Rolleiflex TLR; more recently manual-focus 
Nikon has been the main medium.

But the World turns, and digital cannot be avoided forever.  Which brings me 
here.

Mindful of the 40 lp/mm limit on amateur photography (with a prime lens, a 
lightweight tripod, and 160 ASA colour print film) only a full-frame sensor 
will do.  And full-frame DSLRs are heavy: I want something as light as the 
25 oz of my F3/T; but from Nikon, even the D800 weighs 35 oz with battery 
and memory card.

Hence the attraction of a 21 oz digital Leica M rangefinder.

Needless to say, if anyone has any information or opinion they think will be 
useful, I?d be most grateful.

On Wednesday 23 January 2013, at 01:18 EST, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> To me it really would not make sense for a company I have to say I 
> certainly respect, Nikon to have their step up lens (from a basic kit 
> lens) be a looser. If they can make a bottom of the line lens be a 
> solid performer then why would the totally blow it for people who want 
> to spend some real extra money and get some glass with more functionality.?

I?m not sure that the 24-120 really is a step up lens.  Granted, you can use 
it as one, but I see it as being a specialist lens for people who want to 
use just one lens from wide-angle to portrait length.  (For which it is a 
far better choice than the 28-300.)

If someone wants to step up from a 24-85 kit lens, I would hope they would 
consider using two zooms: adding the new 70-200 f/4 to a 24-85 kit lens 
would be a huge improvement.

If they decide they want a better standard zoom, then the 24-70 f/2.8 is far 
better than a 24-85 kit lens, and only 50% more expensive than the 24-120.

If 50% more is too much, then using prime lenses would also be far better 
than a 24-85 kit lens; a set of three f/1.8s -- 35m, 50mm, and 85mm -- would 
cost significantly less than a 24-120.

If, after all that, they decide that their needs are best met by a 24-120, 
then fair enough.  It?s a specialist lens aimed at specialists like them.

Mark also wrote:

> If you cant shoot Leica than Nikon is not such a terrible way to fly.

Quite so.  Though I am considering the converse: if you cannot lift a Nikon 
DSLR system, then Leica might be the best way to fly.

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from owl at postmaster.co.uk (John Owlett) ([Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120)