Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/22

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

Subject: [Leica] Woe is me...
From: philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:03:33 +0200
References: <CA774F72.13A4F%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Le 22 ao?t 11 ? 06:12, Mark Rabiner a ?crit :

>
> The  24-120 f4 (latest version) is at the top of my lens wish list.
> Without which. I will not be a complete person.
> But all good things must come to those who wait.
>
> --  

At the price they charge for it new - ca 1,000 euros, I'd have a look  
at the older G version 3.5, mine - it sells at 100 euros nearly un- 
used - its terrible reputation makes it a super bargain on the bay now  
its major flaws can be addressed with LR3 profiles...
What I understand is that Aram wants a makeshift lens pending repairs  
so the 3.5 could do the trick.
Think of it too Mark.

Ph





> Mark R.
>
>
>> From: Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:33:17 +0530
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Woe is me...
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>




Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Woe is me...)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Woe is me...)