Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/17

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: LUG ot: sorry, I meant the 14-24.
From: felixmaturana at (FÂelix LÂopez de Maturana)
Date: Thu Apr 17 09:17:52 2008
References: <>

> I think you'd call this an ultra wide zoom.
> The 12-24 is a DX lens and is really an 18-35.
> This having established itself in the film 90's as the most popular and
> useful lens for photojournalists and lots of other type folks with cameras.
> This 14-24 does not replace that lens! It really is a 14-24!
> 14mm is way wider than 18mm.
> And 35mm had much more reach than 24mm.
> And 14-24 f2.8 in a full frame fast lens and weights 1,000g.
> 465g is what the 12-24 DX weights its a stop slower and again designed for 
> a
> smaller format.
> So calling it a better lens is like calling the 38 Biogon a "better lens"
> than a 50 Summicron.
> Its not even apples and oranges
> Apples and pears.
> It's petunias and permanganates.
> Mark William Rabiner
Mark William

I don't know anything about petunias nor permanganates. My wife does as 
she has a nice garden.

But I know something about lenses -having in my cabinet more or less 200 
different from any known manufacturer- and I *know* that a 12-24mm on a 
DX camera see a different field than a 14-24mm on a FX camera.

But, important but, I have seriously tested sharpness, vignetting and 
distortion in both lenses. And this at different apertures and focals 
and you can believe me the later is much better than the former. I'm 
awaiting for my D300 a new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 that is said to be better 
than Nikkor 12-24mm f4. I don't know. The 12-24mm wwas satisfactory for 
me. When it arrives I'll tell you I promiss just it could be an orange 
or an apple.

Warm regards.


Replies: Reply from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: LUG ot: sorry, I meant the 14-24.)