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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:14:19 +0200
References: <CC20CBE5.20DBC%mark@rabinergroup.com>

I'm ok with all you wrote below except that some companies release  
stuff that is sometimes NOT better than the one they sold before - M5?  
Mustang? Lumix? Coca-Cola? R3, etc.

Amiti?s
Philippe

Le 9 juil. 12 ? 23:56, Mark Rabiner a ?crit :

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!))
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!))