Hi--

>Thanks for your report and experiences with this new lens. I've been
>thinking about buying the 20-35MM 2.8 lens.
>
>I'm thinking I might like this 24-120mm better. What do you think?
> beauclk@aol.com (BEAUCLK)

Dunno - haven't used the 20-35 (not much range, big, heavy, very expensive
[and the 20, 28, 35mm MF primes are SO good!]). One is fast, limited range, the other very slow, wide range (though truly excellent at f11, but so,
probably, is the 20-35....). I am not much interested in the 20-35, and
would not recommend the 24-120 as an only lens, just as an alternative
to a good set of primes for those times when the light is bright.
David Ruether