On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:23:19 GMT, "Stéphane Leman-Langlois" wrote:
(alternating with David Ruether...)

>The Nikon 24-120 one of the best zooms on the market??? What are you on?

Have you tried it?
It is, if you consider it compared with others that also include
wide-angle, and especially if you consider it compared with
wide-range zooms that include wide-angle. It is even very close
in performance to non-zooms in its range by f11, and better than
most non-tele-only zooms at f5.6. Not bad....!!! ;-)

>--I think you grossly overrate the 24-120, but I certainly agree that it's
>better than the 28-200--but then the Nikon 28-200 is really below par and
>ridiculously overpriced.
>--"very close in performance" and "by f11" are important (albeit
>insufficient) qualifiers in your response; I think the convenience of a wide
>range zoom is completely defeated if you have to close it down to f11 to get
>decent results. Instead of carrying two lenses, you only carry one, but you
>need to take a tripod. Is it me?
>--Also, to compare it to other zooms of this range is hardly interesting,
>since there aren't any that I know of. That sounds like a plus, I guess, but
>not at this cost.

Hmmm, I thought I was being clear...;-)
Unless you have tried a defective sample (common with zooms, more so
with zooms that include wide-angle, and even more so with wide-range
zooms that include wide-angle - though most people report sharp results with their 24-120's...), you will find that even at f5.6,
this lens outperforms most wide-angle-inclusive zooms - at f11,
it does something virtually unheard of for this type of zoom - it
about equals the image quality of good non-zooms! So,
--I think your apparent assessment of the 24-120 Nikkor as an
inferior zoom is incorrect...
--I sold mine for the reason you gave (I prefer non-zooms for
their better wide-stop performance, and do not consider zooms
particularly "convenient") - but that does not mean that this is
not an excellent zoom (even one of the best available that
includes wide-angle), since it really is...
--As I pointed out, it is better than most other zooms of
its type, even ones of MUCH smaller zoom range, so the issue
of uniqueness is not relevant - though it is quite remarkable,
given its performance level...
Is this clear...? ;-)

Hey, those in US - VOTE TUESDAY November 3rd!
(Maybe we can quiet those Re-Bublicans yapping and nipping
at the heels of Clinton, and maybe get a "do-something"
Congress in the bargain!)