In article <3332fca4.6301728@nntpserver.swip.net>, i96henel@island.liu.se says...
>On 19 Mar 1997 21:42:37 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) wrote:

>>And, heck, this surprisingly brilliant and
>>sharp lens (the German magazine report
>>notwithstanding...;-) is just a piece of AF
>>plastic yucky-stuff physically, so why get
>>so bent out of shape if it self-zooms???
>>(Some Nikkor zooms of yore, all-metal at that,
>>also self-zoom - big deal! Just hang onto
>>that zoom ring...!;-) Nikon long ago (with
>>those dreadful first-version AF lenses, and
>>many subsequent ones...) threw away some of
>>their reputation for fine build-quality
>>and feel. The 24-120 is actually a rather
>>nice lens physically, relatively speaking...

>Well, actually the Swedish magazine Foto tested this lens in the
>latest edition. (Usually they're tests are very good indeed!)
>
>The 24-120 recieved this review. (I can interpret the MTF, Vignetting
>and Distorsion graphs if someone is intrested.)
>
>Resoution:
>Ok at 24 eventhough it gets worse near the edges.
>The resolution decreses with f.l. and at 120 mm it isn't very good.
>
>Vignetting:
>Negligable at all f.l's but 24 where it isn't high with regards to the
>f.l.
>
>Distorsion:
>Clearly noticable in the 50-120 area.
>
>Misc:
>A lens which isn't aimed at the professional which can be seen in both
>price as well as speed. Very intresting range.
>
>Well, seems to second David's view that it's a 24-50(85) with the
>possibility to go to 120.

Um, "24-85, with...";-)

>Btw. In the same Issue the 80-200/2.8 ED N and 85/1.4 were tested,
>they both recieved really great reviews, if anyones intrested, please
>mail me..

Hmmm - in my original post on the 24-120, I did point out the existence
of sample variation (especially with wide-range zooms), and that I had
tried only one (very good) one... (which was better than most of the other quite good Nikkor zooms that also cross the 50mm FL...). Perhaps, as I
said before, the European magazines are hitting the poorer samples...;-)
Also, perhaps they test in a way that is not indicative of general in-use
performance... (standard tests are often made at relatively close distances,
whereas some lenses perform better at mid to longer distances [zooms
especially...]). Anyway, to call the sample I had (I sold it, being a
good-corner-performance-at-wide-apertures nut, and therefore a user of
primes) not very sharp at the long end would be to lie egregiously! ;-)
My lens was excellent throughout at f11, except in the far corners
at the FL extremes, where it was still pretty good (for a zoom...;-).
Hope This Helps