[Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120

[john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster)]

Everybody in this thread has been talking about the current f4 version, and 
with experience of it. This has come up before with the same 
answers/comments....

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> It just that lens lens has existed in as many configurations as there are 
> days in
> the week and it makes a big difference if people are specific as to which 
> one
> they are referring to  because they one they came out the following year 
> was
> the difference between day and night and the one which came out a  year
> after that ditto.
> 
> The 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR which came out in 2003 is a famous looser. Way
> soft all over.
> As to me and many people 2003 feels like the day before yesterday you
> could easily have this lens and think you were shooting with the current
> issue.
> And you can see it sold as if its new now for $669.99 .  Used from $340.0.
> And  refurbished from $475.00 on Amazon. (cue Tarzan) people think they
> are still made. Maybe they are.
> And there were countless versions before this.
> 
> The current offering is the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens.
> Sometimes referred to as (the G lens)
> A totally re designed optic from the ground up and guess what? Nikon got it
> more than right this time.
> This lens came out  22nd September 2010 and has nano nano crystal coating.
> This version cost $1,299.95 according to this thing:
> http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-
> Lenses/2193/AF-S-NI
> KKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html
> Or
> http://tinyurl.com/az7ev3x
> 
> So when people say "my Nikon 24-120 was good/bad" its rather meaningless.
> Its like saying "My meal in little Italy was good/bad" you have to say 
> which
> restaurant and what time of the day it was. And what you ordered.
> And what the wait persons name was.
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/21/13 10:52 PM, "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Here are a few things I don't like about mine.
> >
> > It is not well made. There is a lot of play in the lens barrel,
> > especially when zoomed out a bit.  When it focuses, you can see the
> > image jump around in the viewfinder. Just very sloppy.
> >
> > If you focus on something at a certain focal length, then zoom in or
> > out, the focus shifts.  It is not really what I would call a zoom, but
> > rather some variable focus lens from the 70's.  Makes it just about
> > impossible to use for night photography.  Nothing to focus on, so
> > either prefocus in daylight at infinity, or use live view to focus on
> > a bright star, but the every time you recompose by zooming, you need to
> refocus.
> >
> > The zoom creeps very easily, so makes the above even harder if you
> > tried to prefocus at a specific focal length, as it can change so easily.
> >
> > At times I bet some very sharp photos, but most of the time I let it
> > sit in the camera bag and use the Leica 35-70/4 unless I need
> > autofocus or focal length greater than about 90mm, because I can
> > easily crop the Leica to get a sharper photo than the Nikon at 120
> >
> > And this lens is suppose to be gold banded and much better than the
> > original 24-120.
> >
> > I sent mine back to Nikon to have it tightened up and it came back
> > just about the same.
> >
> > Aram
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard Ritter
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:37 PM
> > To: Leica Users Group
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] (Now) Nikon 24-120
> >
> > Jayanand<
> >
> > May I ask what you didn't like about that new 24-120?
> > Other than the size, weight, and being less sharp toward the corners
> > at all focal lengths than the new (non-gold-banded) 24-85?
> >
> > <howard
> >
> >
> > On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I generally check out all lenses for at least a couple of hours of
> >> use before I buy - the only one I bought on impulse recently, without
> >> testing, the Nikon 24-120 f4 ended up being resold in a couple of
> >> months. There is a lesson there...(-:
> >> Cheers
> >> Jayanand
> >>
>