On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:04:24 -0700, "lotus" wrote:

>I am curious about these two lenses two. Here are a couple of links that
>might be helpful.
>
>Moose Peterson's comments on the 28-200 (Moose has published a Nikon
>photography equipment book and is very fussy about his gear):
>
>http://www.moose395.net/firstlooks.html#28200
>
>And the inimitable, always helpful and seldom inaccurate Ruether, who has
>tales to tell on virtually every Nikon lens - a good review of the 24-120 is
>at
>
>http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/articles.html#24-120
>
>and for a lot of fun his rating list of all lenses is at
>
>http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/slemn.html


Well, goersh, t'enks fer da kom-ments...;-)
I have tried both lenses, and I was not fond
of the 28-200mm - not bad, but not up to
general Nikon standards in zooms (which are
not up to general Nikon standards in primes
[though there are a few really exceptional
Nikkor zooms, and some very good ones, like
the 24-120...;-]). With the ONE sample of
each I tried, the 24-120mm was, ahem,
"clearly" better...;-) BTW, a repost of my
review of the 28-200mm Nikkor appeared
earlier today in this NG...