Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Maybe you're thinking, Philippe that I'm thinking that if there 's a big difference between the latest version of the nikon 24-120 than I expect you to trade yours in for it because of that. And you'd be wrong in thinking that. My only expectations are for myself and I tend to not upgrade my gear so much. When I buy I lens I marry it. I accept it for better or worse for the long haul. For Richer or poorer. Once in blue moon do I start looking at around at other women. I mean photo gear. When another lens comes out better it seldom interests me. I feel invested in what I have. But I'll in general discourage a lot of buying and selling of gear I think its noise. And I can only hope that people don't listen to me and I'm sure they don't. Its not my name on their credit card its theirs. My expectations for other people is really interesting as I really don't have any. I suppose the only time I could get into an argument is if you said something like "there's no big difference between a "pre ASPH 21 Elmarit and the current asph" or the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 and the 24-120 f4 as all logic and common sense and printed test results points to the obvious. that when a camera company upgrades a lens seldom do they blow it and it comes out worse instead of better. And when the do so its for a reason and a good and valid reason and its perhaps if you had the money and interest worth looking into. Optical technology has not plateaued out. Its exciting what's currently happening in optical lens development. When they re think a focal length, Leica, Nikon, Canon whoever it tends to be a whole new ballgame. If someone wanted to upgrade a lens they had and they had the money it would be likely to be worth it. But if they don't care why should I? Though if all you and other people saw of your work was 1000 pixel lengh jpegs uploaded to a online galleries I cant see how it would make any difference either way. - - from my iRabs. Mark Rabiner 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, 9 Jul 2012 23:06:32 +0200 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information