04-13-2011, 11:32 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302689007' post='7589']
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
-- Markus
[/quote]
I do see why, it is in no relation to the rating of the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM rating of the same (mechanical quality).
The Canon is better constructed, yet gets a lower rating. Ergo, either don't give ratings, or make sure the ratings are actually consistent with practice.
From the Canon lens review:
"The build quality of this lens is excellent thanks to quality materials and tight tolerances. There's no significant wobbling of the inner lens tube and both the zoom and focus control rings operate very smooth. The lens has been designed to survive in harsh conditions due to sealings against dust and moisture. The conventional zoom mechanism extends towards the long end of the range. The front element does not rotate during focusing so there're no issues when using a polarizer - without hood at least."
And:
"A ring-type USM AF drive based on a front-focusing system is responsible for an extremely fast AF speed and low AF noise. The AF accuracy of the tested sample was exceptionally high. Full-time manual focusing (FTM) is always possible in one-shot AF mode."
You really do need to work on getting the ratings from the different reviewers a bit more in line, else the rating system is even more problematic than they by definition already are.
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
You yourself note the same about the Nikon 24-120mm f4:
"Unfortunately the focus ring shows a behaviour which we have seen in other recent Nikon lenses, too: there's a little play, not in the focus ring itself, but the coupling with the actual focus unit. When changing the focus direction, it takes a few millimeters of movement until the focus unit actually follows the focus ring. This can be annoying when trying to nail critical focus, for example in Live View.
In addition, the focus ring is rather thin and the travel path rather short. So, in summary, this lens is not much fun to focus manually."
Besides that, the Canon apparently is a faster focuser too, which also would fall under mechanical quality....
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
-- Markus
[/quote]
I do see why, it is in no relation to the rating of the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM rating of the same (mechanical quality).
The Canon is better constructed, yet gets a lower rating. Ergo, either don't give ratings, or make sure the ratings are actually consistent with practice.
From the Canon lens review:
"The build quality of this lens is excellent thanks to quality materials and tight tolerances. There's no significant wobbling of the inner lens tube and both the zoom and focus control rings operate very smooth. The lens has been designed to survive in harsh conditions due to sealings against dust and moisture. The conventional zoom mechanism extends towards the long end of the range. The front element does not rotate during focusing so there're no issues when using a polarizer - without hood at least."
And:
"A ring-type USM AF drive based on a front-focusing system is responsible for an extremely fast AF speed and low AF noise. The AF accuracy of the tested sample was exceptionally high. Full-time manual focusing (FTM) is always possible in one-shot AF mode."
You really do need to work on getting the ratings from the different reviewers a bit more in line, else the rating system is even more problematic than they by definition already are.
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
You yourself note the same about the Nikon 24-120mm f4:
"Unfortunately the focus ring shows a behaviour which we have seen in other recent Nikon lenses, too: there's a little play, not in the focus ring itself, but the coupling with the actual focus unit. When changing the focus direction, it takes a few millimeters of movement until the focus unit actually follows the focus ring. This can be annoying when trying to nail critical focus, for example in Live View.
In addition, the focus ring is rather thin and the travel path rather short. So, in summary, this lens is not much fun to focus manually."
Besides that, the Canon apparently is a faster focuser too, which also would fall under mechanical quality....