Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes Ken Lincoln Rockwell is calling the 3.5 " NOT RECOMMENDED (one of Nikon's 10 worst lenses of all time). enlarge. I'd get mine at Adorama, Amazon, or Ritz. " I'll have to be really going into this before I lay down my money. I tend to go with currant versions no matter what the cost.. -- Mark R. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:03:33 +0200 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Woe is me... > > > 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/mailma >>>> n/ >>>> 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information