ah quality,, that elusive item,,, but sometimes,, there no doupt when you hold in your hand..
like go back the the SLR days..
Hold say a FM2 and then hold a F3,,,
FM2.. nice,,, F3,, woww,,, NICEEEEE.
hit the film advance of the FM2,, ... clunk clunk advance, ,, ok
hit the film advance of the F3,,, silky smooth,,, motiion of film advance,, NICEEEEE
At one time, Nikkor did not know how to make a cheap leans,, just get a 100mm NIKON E lens..
such a great lens, sharp,, and turn the focus .... really,, the modern manual Zeiss barely are any
better.
but... alas,, Nikon had to cheapen,, some real dog of lens existed in the 90's when Nikon came
out with the early G lens,,, some were so awful,, I remember a 55-300 (not the current one)
that was so cheap,, you had to take a double take.
you can see that some in their line up from the 3K series up thru the 7K series,, each layer just
a bit more quality..
and well the D300/700/800 and of course the flagship blocks of SLR technology of D2/3/4,, just ooze
solid build..
which is why I was disappointed with the DF,, if you are going to have a silver top,, then make it METAL!
reminded me of the el cheapo FM10,, remember those plastic junky SLRs,, Nikon actually made these
a long time into the digital era for all those Film school students.
I do feel just a bit let down with the lastest Pro line of Nikkor,,,
Yes I love the 14-24,, but it just barely makes my Pro quality.. its good,, but some slop,, and the plastic is barely
good enough,,
I checked out the 24-70 2.8,, and frankly felt almost let down,, yes, the optics are great,, quality build is better
than the consumer lens, but very incremental.
compare that to say the 105 DC metal lens,, or the old 20-35 lens,, beautiful build,, even my old 35-70 2.8 has a great
build,, tough as nails..
I feel now,, I have to be extra careful with the newer lens..
I suppose they are lighter, but neither lens can be classified as light weights.
I know optics/features should be the overriding features, but,,, I guess I also like the intrinsic quality factor. Kinda
the joy of use factor.
I would have of course no issue buying the 24-70 2.8,, in time.
Lately,, I have been using the 24-85 older G lens,,, and this is really just a consumer lens, but convenient as heck.
but, I'll switch back to the 35-70 soon,,
like go back the the SLR days..
Hold say a FM2 and then hold a F3,,,
FM2.. nice,,, F3,, woww,,, NICEEEEE.
hit the film advance of the FM2,, ... clunk clunk advance, ,, ok
hit the film advance of the F3,,, silky smooth,,, motiion of film advance,, NICEEEEE
At one time, Nikkor did not know how to make a cheap leans,, just get a 100mm NIKON E lens..
such a great lens, sharp,, and turn the focus .... really,, the modern manual Zeiss barely are any
better.
but... alas,, Nikon had to cheapen,, some real dog of lens existed in the 90's when Nikon came
out with the early G lens,,, some were so awful,, I remember a 55-300 (not the current one)
that was so cheap,, you had to take a double take.
you can see that some in their line up from the 3K series up thru the 7K series,, each layer just
a bit more quality..
and well the D300/700/800 and of course the flagship blocks of SLR technology of D2/3/4,, just ooze
solid build..
which is why I was disappointed with the DF,, if you are going to have a silver top,, then make it METAL!
reminded me of the el cheapo FM10,, remember those plastic junky SLRs,, Nikon actually made these
a long time into the digital era for all those Film school students.
I do feel just a bit let down with the lastest Pro line of Nikkor,,,
Yes I love the 14-24,, but it just barely makes my Pro quality.. its good,, but some slop,, and the plastic is barely
good enough,,
I checked out the 24-70 2.8,, and frankly felt almost let down,, yes, the optics are great,, quality build is better
than the consumer lens, but very incremental.
compare that to say the 105 DC metal lens,, or the old 20-35 lens,, beautiful build,, even my old 35-70 2.8 has a great
build,, tough as nails..
I feel now,, I have to be extra careful with the newer lens..
I suppose they are lighter, but neither lens can be classified as light weights.
I know optics/features should be the overriding features, but,,, I guess I also like the intrinsic quality factor. Kinda
the joy of use factor.
I would have of course no issue buying the 24-70 2.8,, in time.
Lately,, I have been using the 24-85 older G lens,,, and this is really just a consumer lens, but convenient as heck.
but, I'll switch back to the 35-70 soon,,