Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09

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

Subject: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)
From: philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:06:32 +0200
References: <CC20B246.20DA0%mark@rabinergroup.com>

No Mark,

I just happen to own and use the old version that came for free when I  
bought the body.
I'm satisfied with it so long as :
a) I don't want to send big bucks on a hypothetically better "new"  
lens when I loose yet another half a stop,
b) it is light and versatile as correctly stated by you
c) I tend to accept a compromise when I know it is one, and this one  
is a massive one :-)

Would I need to impress people I'd take another hobby, and I have  
never pretended I was a "discerning photographer" nor a deserving one  
BTW :-(

Photography is my pleasure and the gear I buy I use, I also share my  
results, some people like what I do.
Others don't, I don't resent this, at all :-)

I don't care a damn how many elements a lens has, nor what coating has  
been used.
Yet I like to know what the lens can achieve, from experience;
that's all I need and want to know.
Testing is believing, and lusting is out of my frame of mind except  
for a joke, ask Geoff.

A lens or a camera is a tool, I have pleasure with them, or I dump them.
Right now, I'm sticking with my gotten free infamous f3.5 24-120mm :-)

Amiti?s
Philippe




Le 9 juil. 12 ? 22:07, Mark Rabiner a ?crit :

> On one hand just became Rockwell  likes  it doesn't mean its a bad  
> lens.
> On the other hand its simple to just google
> Nikon 24-120  f4 G
> and read the slew of other reviews one intensive one I mentioned  
> last night
> there seems to be a consensus that Nikon's not come out with another  
> blooper
> version of the same focal lengths. The thing is Nikon usually gets  
> it right
> most of the time. Buying a lens from Nikon is very much NOT a  
> crapshoot.
> Leica has had its share of rare bloopers too despite being a much more
> premium company.
>
> You want to complain buy a lens with a huge range and start to pixel  
> peep.
> Your guaranteed to have stuff to complain about.
> On the other hand when I get the new 24-85G VR I can pixel peep like  
> crazy
> and complain about not getting 120mm.
>
> Optical construction    17 elements in 13 groups inc. 2x ED and 3x
> Aspherical elements and 1x element with Nano Crystal Coat
> Number of aperture blades    9 (rounded)
> min. focus distance    0,45m (max. magnification ratio 1:4.2)
>
> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff
> These guys thought the lens has a lot going for it but was far from  
> great
> and how below average resolution.
> For a lens with an extreme zoom range you'd expect to read what?
>
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/
> Another review again not a rave but far from pan. Its being  
> considered as a
> viable choice. Shooting wide open (f4) at a few different focal  
> lengths
> would seem to give less than great results. That's huge news for some
> people.
> 24mm
> 28mm
> 35mm
> 50mm
> 85mm
> 105mm
> 120mm
> That's not a small camera bag filled with glass all wrapped up into  
> one
> lens. It is a full sized camera bag filled with glass.  Is this   
> lens used
> by people who are into premium resolution and distortion defects?  
> That would
> be called having your cake and eating it too. When you get seven  
> lenses into
> one its known by the old school as "a huge compromise". You want  
> cutting
> edge quality shoot with a prime or a much more conservative zoom.
>
> Its interesting to me that "24-120" is like holding a red flag in  
> front of
> many photo buff's face. Why would it be beyond their imagination  
> that years
> later a lens with that focal lengh could be introduced which could  
> be much
> better made? Why start to pant every time the term "24-120 " is  
> introduced?
> Does this make you appear to be a discerning photographer? Is this  
> supposed
> to impress people?
>
>
> - - from my iRabs.
> Mark Rabiner
>
>
>> From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group
>> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:13:37 +0200
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!)
>>
>> DK about Rockwell, well I know the painter and I like his work,  
>> Norman
>> I mean,
>> but the 3.5 lens I own is only a light makeshift I use a lot, for the
>> want of a better offer from the manufacturer,
>> or an R9 diesel that would take my ang?nieux's ...
>>
>> I picked up an 18-35 two weeks ago; the feel is fine - ask Daniel-  
>> and
>> the results far from mediocre, I may have been lucky.
>>
>> What is striking is that their sensors are way cool, what you'd  
>> expect
>> these days,
>> yet, the ergonomics of the gear need A LOT of getting used to,
>> and the lenses are nothing else than a lottery...
>> Pity!
>>
>> Dreaming Philippe
>>
>> Le 9 juil. 12 ? 20:08, Frank Dernie a ?crit :
>>
>>> I understand the new f4 version of the 24-120 is no better quality
>>> than its predecessor the f3.5-f5.6 which you dislike so much, though
>>> I have not tried one myself (I was put off by so many disappointed
>>> owners posting on the 'net). How many really disappointing pictures
>>> did you take with your f3.5-f5.6 before coming to the conclusion it
>>> was rubbish?
>>> I -know- that half-wit Rockwell slags it off, but most of what he
>>> writes is a load of old tosh, so that means nothing to me.
>>> Frank D
>>>
>>> On 9 Jul, 2012, at 08:31, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think more pros well use the 24-85 but plenty will use the  
>>>> 24-120.
>>>> Depending on their needs.
>>>> If they need a more conservative better corrected optic they'll get
>>>> that
>>>> one.
>>>> If they are just shooting people and like the range they'll get the
>>>> 24-120.
>>>> I wont know till the time comes but I like 600 bucks  for a better
>>>> corrected
>>>> lens better than 1300 for a less corrected.
>>>> The former is just out and I'd forgotten about it.
>>>>
>>>> I will say one thing
>>>> I'd gotten quite used to using a 24-85 on a D200 DX body and I
>>>> liked the
>>>> reach. Now that I'm using it on a full frame D700 I'm no longer
>>>> getting that
>>>> reach. The 24-120 gives it back to me. Plus on the wide side two
>>>> more focal
>>>> lenghs. That sound real good to me. But not the weight and the
>>>> bulk. And the
>>>> price.
>>>> I'd like to try one in hand first. See if it likes me. Which one.
>>>>
>>>> - - from my iRabs.
>>>> Mark Rabiner
> _______________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!))
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!))