Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Aram, I have the 24-120 f4 (latest version) - and I do not like the lens at all, in fact I am planning to sell it off. I will continue to use three cheapo plastic Nikon lenses for this zoom range - the venerable D70 kit lens, the 18-70 f3.5-4 or the 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (the old one) for APS-C bodies, and the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 for full frame. IMHO both the 18-70 and 24-85 are better lenses than the 24-120, and the 18-200 is just plain convenient! Cheers Jayanand On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Aram Langhans <leicar at q.com> wrote: > After leaving David Young's house in Logan lake, I was wandering down 99 > towards > Vancouver taking photos of waterfalls, and at Nairn falls my 35-70/4 R lens > fell from it's bag on my waist to the ground and went thump. I picked it > up > and it looked fine, except for a small ding in the paint on the barrel. It > landed fairly square on the side. Well, the next time I went to use it at > the next falls, I noticed I could not focus to infinity. Hmm. I looked at > it and saw that the front element groups can be pulled in and out a few > millimeters by hand w/o turning the focus ring. Not a good sign. > Something > broke inside. I cried a bit on the inside. I thought these things were > indestructible. Ha. > > So, here are a few questions. > > Any suggestions as to who I should have look at it for repairs? > > Is it easy to partially dismantle it myself to see if something just came > unclipped or something? I see no screws up front unless they are under the > rubber grip for the focus ring. > > At any rate, I doubt I can get it fixed in three weeks, which is when we > are > going on our next trip, a long one from coast to coast. So, I may just > need > to break down and get a Nikon mount lens. > > Any suggestions? While I was in Canada and also passing through Seattle I > visited a few stores. Two lenses were recommended as replacements. > The 24-70/2.8 Nikon and the 24-120/4 Nikon. I actually got to play with > them for a bit. Each has pros and cons. The 24-70 is probably a better > lens, but it weighs over two times what the Leica 35-70 weighs. And it has > more distortion, yet seems pretty sharp. > The 24-120 took some pretty nice shots in the store, and I was told it is > almost as good as the 24-70. It has a bit more distortion, but then again > it is a 5x zoom compared to a 3x zoom. the Leica is a 2x zoom and the > distortions are very small in my experience. the 24-120 does have IS, and > weighs about the same as the Leica. Also, since I have lived with f-4 all > these years, maybe it would not be so bad. > > I knew one of these days I would replace the 35-70 as my eyes age more and > it gets harder to focus, but I was not counting on it for quite some time. > I was hoping Nikon would have added IS to the 24-70 by that time. > > So, any answers to the above questions about repairs, or about lens choices > would be appreciated. I'll go off to my corner and stare at my broken lens > and cry a bit. I do plan on having it repaired, but the timing is bad > right > now. > > Aram, sad in Yakima..... > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Leica Users Group. > See > http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for > more information >