On Sat, 24 May 2003 11:51:30 +0200, "alpheratz" <alpheratz@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@clearether.com> a écrit dans le message de news:


>> On 23 May 2003 22:01:44 -0700, pat10036@yahoo.com (Pat) wrote:


>> >I have Nikon N60, Nikon 50mm/1.8 lenses and SB-22S flash unit and

>> >happy with the results.

>> >

>> >I recently borrowed Nikon 24-120mm/3.5-5.6D lenses from a friend and

>> >shot many rolls of the color film as well as the black and white film.

>> >

>> >I got the prints today and was not happy with the results:

>> >   1) The pictures did not come as sharp as I get with my 50mm/1.8

>> >   2) Pictures on the beach (Backlit situation) have flare.


>I agree with all what Michael has written.

>I do own a 24 120 myself and do not consider it a sharp lens.

>I have invested since in the much costly Nikon 28-70.... the results cannot

>compare, and this is no surprise.

>Should I have to buy something more affordable, i would think to a 24-70

>(sigma) or even the Nikon 24-85... reduced zoom range is probably a good way

>to have a better quality.

>For travelling purpose i know rely on three zooms:

>sigma 17-35 (quality is medium+) but quality/price ratio is definitely good

>Nikon 28-70 AD D etc (built in motor)(quality is good but the bill is heavy)

>Nikon 80-200 AFD  (quality is good+, which means fair enough for me)


>Anyway for sharp, crisp pictures if needed i will pack my 24 or 35mm



Having tried a bunch of Nikkor 24-120mm samples, I found

most (not all, but about 4 out of 5) usable wide-open,

quite good by f5.6, and really excellent at the next three

stops (center-to-corner at all FLs, not just over most of

the image area, or at some FLs). Most 50mm lenses will beat

most zooms at f5.6 and wider (there are exceptions, but

these are rare), but the best of the "middle-quality" zooms

are close from f8-22, and therefore quite usable outdoors

as replacements for non-zooms when shallow DOF and very low

linear distortion are not needed. As for the 24mm Nikkor,

it is a really excellent lens from f5.6, OK at f4, and not

really good at f2.8, meaning that at one stop down from it,

the 24-120 can generally perform about as well,(barring a

sub-standard sample...). BTW, the 24-120 and some other

Nikkors are reviewed at

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html, and MANY Nikkors

are evaluated at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.

BTW, if you rate the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor only "good+",

you must be having poor luck - these are generally as

sharp as non-zooms from f4, and very close even at f2.8

(with the caveats pointed out in ["SLEMN]").