Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have been using the 24-120/4 for about 11 months now. I can't say I am thrilled with the results, though I like the reach. I was experiencing some mechanical problems with the lens. If I grabbed the front ring and wobbled it, there was a lot of play and it did not improve it I racked the lens in to the 24mm position. And while walking around, the lens developed quite a bit of creep from when I first got it. I sent it to Nikon for a look. I also had them look at the focus, because it does not behave like any Zoom lens I have ever had. If I am in focus at 24mm, and I zoom out to some other focal length, the focus shifts. And vice versa. It was terribly frustrating in Yosemite a few months ago when shooting the moonbow at midnight. I could never get the focus correct, so I slapped on the Leica 35-70, set it to infinity, and the day was saved, albeit at a shorter focal length. I sent the lens back to Nikon and just got it back a few weeks ago. They said everything was just fine. No problems. The must have lubed it a bit, as the lens barrel does not wobble or creep as much as it did. I suspect that will return as I break it in again. It still focus shifts dramatically when you zoom in or out. I guess it is designed that way. An old variable focus design in a new lens. As far as image quality, it is OK, but not what I would expect from a $1200 lens. Been spoiled by my 35-70/4 Leica R zoom. that lens is a very nice lens. Of course, it is a 2x zoom vs a 5x zoom, so I would expect it to be better. But it also is in focus at whatever the focusing ring says, and if you zoom in and out the focus does not change. A true, high quality zoom. Aram -------------------------------------------------- From: "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:08 AM To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon forum advice (OT!) > 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 >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > >