On Sat, 24 May 2003 15:31:05 GMT, Michael Benveniste <mhb@clearether.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 May 2003 13:52:27 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)

>wrote:

>>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).

>

>I bought mine based in part on your review. At the shorter focal

>lengths, I've found the same progression. At the "long" end, I find

>f/5.6 is for snapshots only and the sweet spot shifts up to f/10-f16

>or so.

>

>In short, it does what I expect, which is to replace two or three

>other lenses while travelling. I do give up some film choice and some

>control over depth of field, of course, but as anyone who's ever

>shopped at a 7-11 knows, convenience has its price.

I suspect, then, that your sample is a bit substandard (I

always recommend that zooms [well, any lens, really...]

be purchased only from sources with exchange or money-back

guarantees, and that all lenses be tested when purchased).

Even the best vary a bit (acceptable), and have the

occasional "dud" (unacceptable) - and some really excellent

lenses sometimes have a low good-sample rate (Nikkor 35-105

MF, for example). In general, your observation, "In short,

it [zoom lens] does what I expect, which is to replace two

or three other lenses while travelling. I do give up some

film choice and some control over depth of field, of course,

but as anyone who's ever shopped at a 7-11 knows,

convenience has its price." is an excellent description of

the differences between using a zoom or a set of

non-zooms...