Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How many Nikon 24-120mm's have their been?

Reply
Thread Tools

How many Nikon 24-120mm's have their been?

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2011
I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
last one from about $700 to $1200.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2011
On 4/26/2011 3:13 PM, RichA wrote:
> I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
> but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
> last one from about $700 to $1200.


Don't buy one.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
I shot with the very first one years ago, and it was a very nice lens. Very sharp up to 90mm, and very good after that. No IS though, but I really liked that lens.


"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
last one from about $700 to $1200.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
> but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
> last one from about $700 to $1200.


It's good to see that in this Internet backwater, the standards of
accuracy and research remain at their historical levels. I
haven't been able to find more than three versions released
publicly, but I look forward to learning about the other versions
you know about.

As for "never well-regarded," that's pretty much true, especially
among people who never tried one. You may hear a different story
from a real photojournalist, tourist, or other photographer who
realizes a) the MTF and SQF of a missed shot are exactly zero,
and b) you shouldn't try to pretend a Swiss Army Knife is the
same thing as a K-Bar Army Knife.

All lenses are engineering compromises, and cost plays a part in
almost all of the tradeoffs. The f/3.5~5.6 versions traded off
some optical quality for savings in size, weight, and yes, cost.
The newer f/4 version chooses different tradeoffs at a different
price.

--
Mike Benveniste -- http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain



 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
On Apr 27, 9:25*am, "Michael Benveniste" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. *Never well-regarded,
> > but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
> > last one from about $700 to $1200.

>
> It's good to see that in this Internet backwater, the standards of
> accuracy and research remain at their historical levels. *I
> haven't been able to find more than three versions released
> publicly, but I look forward to learning about the other versions
> you know about.
>
> As for "never well-regarded," that's pretty much true, especially
> among people who never tried one. *You may hear a different story
> from a real photojournalist, tourist, or other photographer who
> realizes a) the MTF and SQF of a missed shot are exactly zero,
> and b) you shouldn't try to pretend a Swiss Army Knife is the
> same thing as a K-Bar Army Knife.


I tried one on the D300. The 16-85 wipes the floor with it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
On 4/27/2011 9:30 AM, Rich wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:25 am, "Michael Benveniste"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
>>> but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
>>> last one from about $700 to $1200.

>>


>
> I tried one on the D300. The 16-85 wipes the floor with it.


REALLY?

How well does the 16-85 work at 105mm?? Do a direct comparison.

I own Canon, not Nikon, but I own a Canon 24-105 f/4L lens.
Its a good lens, but at the top of its range the much cheaper
70-300 I own is much better. Over some of its range the
extremely cheap (as in flimsy and low cost) 17-55 kit lens
is equally good (but lacks IS). This in on crop frame.

But neither 70-300 nor 17-55 is a good general lens.
The 24-105 is.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I tried one on the D300. The 16-85 wipes the floor with it.


Please feel free to post comparison shots along with the
reference to those other "special" versions of the 24-120mm
I've never heard of.

I'll wait with baited breath, assuming, of course, that I
have sashimi for dinner.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
On Apr 27, 11:34*am, "Michael Benveniste" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I tried one on the D300. *The 16-85 wipes the floor with it.

>
> Please feel free to post comparison shots along with the
> reference to those other "special" versions of the 24-120mm
> I've never heard of.
>


"Special?" In what sense? They had D, ED, ED VR and the new f4.0
across the board.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Special?" In what sense? They had D, ED, ED VR and the new f4.0
> across the board.


The non-VR ED version would be "special," because if it ever
existed it was never released publicly. Nor is it listed in
the Archive section of the Nikon Imaging website.

I eagerly await your evidence of same as well as your
comparison photos.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain





 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
On 4/27/2011 3:31 PM, Michael Benveniste wrote:
> "Rich"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Special?" In what sense? They had D, ED, ED VR and the new f4.0
>> across the board.

>
> The non-VR ED version would be "special," because if it ever
> existed it was never released publicly. Nor is it listed in
> the Archive section of the Nikon Imaging website.
>
> I eagerly await your evidence of same as well as your
> comparison photos.
>


My bated breath wait will smell baited, long before that happens.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
How to count how many visitor's have js enabled and how many does not? damezumari Javascript 18 12-20-2006 12:07 PM
Since MSN CHAT went pay per use. Is their any other free ones out their Hugh Computer Support 8 05-19-2004 05:52 PM
Nikon 5700 - Do I have to use their software Tavish Muldoon Digital Photography 6 05-10-2004 01:16 PM
Stop Spammers by Hitting Their Servers - Not Their Email. Magic347 Computer Support 27 07-03-2003 04:36 PM



Advertisments