[Leica] D700

[benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)]

Looking at this:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_nikkor24-120mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm

I, personally, wouldn't bother.  I am not interested in a lens with
MTF that looks like that.  It's not strictly the resolution, it's the
lack of rendition of fine texture that goes along with the lack of
resolution that bothers me in the results from lenses like that.  I
have seen plenty of good work done with the older lenses too, but
usually away from the widest end of the zoom and at middling distances
to the subject.  I'd prefer a lens I can use however I like and have
it work really well.

Marty

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> No, this was the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR AF-S. ?I didn't know it had been
> redesigned. ?I got sent that one, the 3.5-5.6 on a review camera in
> April. ?I have enough decent glass now that when I get Nikons for
> review I ask them to send the camera without a lens. ?I didn't know it
> had been redesigned, but the new glass gets released in Australia a
> while, sometimes several months, after the rest of the world.
>
> One sad thing the D3x made me realise is that my much loved 28 1.4
> AF-D is showing its age. ?I always knew it wasn't as good as the
> Summicron, but it was starting to look rather ragged wide open and
> close up on the D3x.
>
> Marty
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at 
> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marty,
>> Do you mean the one launched a short while ago that has just hit the 
>> market?
>> 24-120 f4? In the Nikon lists it is getting good reviews.
>> Cheers
>> Jayanand
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The new 24-120 is just as bad as the first one. ?I don't know if it's
>>> been redesigned optically, but it is cosmetically different and has
>>> AF-S and VR. ?When I tested a Nikon D700 that was the lens that Nikon
>>> sent with the camera. ?I thought something was wrong with the camera
>>> until I tried it with some better glass.
>>>
>>> I agree on VR; it's great. ?It's just a shame that subject movement
>>> makes it less useful for what I do, but a camera with built-in
>>> anti-shake and good f1.4 lenses would be nice.
>>>
>>> Marty
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >From what I know the 24-120 established a bad rep from day one but was
>>> > completely redone a few years later then completely redone again then a
>>> few
>>> > years later completely redone again with VR. It could be ok by now 
>>> > though
>>> I
>>> > like zooms which vear on the conservative side. But the 24-120 has VR.
>>> > And VR is a not to be an underestimated game changer.
>>> >
>>> > Voucher Recharge
>>> > Verification Requirement
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --------------------
>>> > Mark William Rabiner
>>> > Photography
>>> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>>> > mark at rabinergroup.com
>>> > Cars: ? http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> From: Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com>
>>> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:19:10 +1030
>>> >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] D700
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't like zooms. ?The 24-70 2.8 AF-S is decent. ?The 24-120 is the
>>> >> worst; the real dog of the Nikkor range.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just about any wide range zoom is hopeless for architectural work.
>>> >>
>>> >> Marty
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>