Arie Bomhof
> I've heard some good things about the Nikon 24-120. I am having a tough
> time deciding if I should buy it or primes like the 24 f/2.8 , the 35
> f/2, and maybe the 85 (f/??). I would like to stay with the Nikon
> lenses. 10 years ago I had a Tokina 28-80 and hated it. I traded it in
> for a 28 and 50 and loved them. (I since had them stolen.) Even in
> this day of computer aided lenses I'm still hesitant to go with the
> zooms. The cost for the 24-120 would be much cheaper than the 3
> primes. Can any body help me decide what to do?
If you are willing to use a tripod for most photos (or whatever other
means are needed to get sharp images with the lens set around f11),
the 24-120 will make images hard to distinguish from good primes,
IF it is used well stopped down. If you want excellent performance at
wider apertures, primes will serve better (though the 24-120 is remarkably
good by f5.6...). Generally, what separates the best primes from lesser
primes or most zooms is the quality of the wide-aperture performance
(though the 24-120 Nikkor is almost unique among wide-range
wide-to-tele zooms in that it really is quite good [for a zoom...;-]).
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether