«

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
>> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
>>
>> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.
>
>Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
>better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already been
>reached?


You seem to like moving goal posts, David.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
>>> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
>>>
>>> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.
>>
>>Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
>>better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already
>>been
>>reached?
>
>
> You seem to like moving goal posts, David.

You seem to like making personal points, Bruce, and avoiding the
discussion.
Goodbye.

On 6/10/2011 2:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article<4df0e3ca$0$12510$>,
> PeterN<> wrote:
>
>>> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
>>> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
>>> have a larger aperture throughout.
>>>
>>> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
>>> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
>>> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> What other (FX) lenses should I look at?
>>>
>>
>> What type of shooting do you do?
>
> This would be for more or less casual shooting, where I'd normally use
> the above Tamron. I use fixed lenses for portrait photography. This is
> mainly just for taking nice pictures of the kids when we're out and
> about.
>
>> What is your budget.
>
> Budget... isn't super important. Just not crazy expensive
>
>> All of my lenses are Nikon.
>> I use the 70-200, sometimes with the 1.7 teleconverter for street,
>> wildlife and zoos.
>
> Yes, I love the 70-200, use it for weddings and events mostly.
>
>> The 80-400 to landscape and sometimes prefocused for birds.
>> The 18-200, which is soft, as a walk around in hot weather. (Yes, I know
>> that is a DX lens, but Nikon FF will take it. Indeed the results are at
>> least as good as on a good DX camera.
>
> 18-200 would be nice, but I would prefer a FX lens...
>
> Thanks!


The 24-120 should fit your bill, but it is f4. One of my friends has one
and he is happy with it.
Otherwise, for a single general purpose walk about, with low light
capability, I use my old 50mm 1.4.

HTH

--
Peter

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:

>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
>>>> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.
>>>
>>>Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
>>>better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already
>>>been
>>>reached?
>>
>>
>> You seem to like moving goal posts, David.
>
>You seem to like making personal points, Bruce, and avoiding the
>discussion.


It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
> always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
> involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
> this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.

Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>[]
>> It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
>> always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
>> involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
>> this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.
>
>Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
>choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
>knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
>resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.


The issue I raised was that, long after it was clear that the OP owned
an FX body, you were off on a tangent discussing an upgrade from DX to
FX. When I called you out on that, you moved the goal posts once more
and started discussing something else! You might think that is
entertaining, but it is merely tiresome. You are clearly incapable of
sticking to the topic at hand, so any further discussion is pointless.
I put you in my kill file for this very reason some time ago. Having
reviewed my kill file decisions over the last few days, as I do
periodically, in your case it was definitely the right call.

Are you by any chance related to Mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski)?

Ctrl-K (again!)

On 6/10/2011 3:54 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> []
>> It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
>> always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
>> involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
>> this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.
>
> Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
> choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
> knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
> resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.
>
>
How many years ago did he have any credibility.

--
Peter

"PeterN" <> wrote in message
news:4df24e27$0$12519$...
> On 6/10/2011 2:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
>> In article<4df0e3ca$0$12510$>,
>> PeterN<> wrote:
>>
>>>> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
>>>> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
>>>> have a larger aperture throughout.
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
>>>> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
>>>> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
>>>> course.
>
>
> The 24-120 should fit your bill, but it is f4. One of my friends has one
> and he is happy with it.

I have it, and I'm distinctly *not* happy with it. Actually, I *had* it.
Gave it away years ago.
Way too soft and slow at all focal lengths.

Far be it for me to cite Ken Rockwell as an authoratitive source, but he
does get to play with lots of Nikon lenses. The 24-120 makes #3 of his
worst 10 ever
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm
and he outlines many good reasons for not liking it (all of which, BTW, I
happen to agree with)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm

A great idea (9+ on paper) but a dog in the hand.

I much prefer my 18-200, even though its huge and heavy - but I don't use
the SLR for a lightweight "carry-around". That's what the P&S is for.

HTH

--
Jeff R.

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2011061017323110672-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
> BTW; Since you value his opinion, here is Rockwell's take on the new
> 24-120mm f/4.
> < http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


Thanks all, for the correction.
I stand (sit) chastened.

--
Jeff R.

"PeterN" <> wrote in message
news:4df2836a$0$12466$...
[]
> How many years ago did he have any credibility.
>
> --
> Peter

Well, Bruce/Tony /seems/ to have a lot of knowledge in some areas, and
some of his input has been useful, providing you take his biases into
account. Quite why he doesn't want to discuss the topic here isn't clear
to me. Of course topics do drift as can be seen from many threads here,
but as soon as that happens with this thread he resorts to personal
attacks and kill-filing me! His loss, I'm afraid.

Cheers,
David