In article <32997483.643D@ncl.ac.uk>, Fei.Xia@ncl.ac.uk says...
[most deleted]
>..The mechanical constitution of the lens is therefore
>important to some potential buyers at least. I am
>not worried about the self zoom as much as about
>the radical change of volume (almost double). Dust
>and moisture could be sucked in more readily for
>instance. The self shape change also indicates a
>looseness apparently designed in as either a
>feature or a necessary compromise, which does not
>give confidence for a long life. Let's face it,
>Nikkor buyers expect a certain mechanical quality
>from the lenses and this one would certainly be a
>shock to even Series E users on initial encounter.

Hmmm, I find it amusing that I find myself defending
the build quality of an AF lens (my detestation of
the breed should be well-known by now...;-), but,
given that one is willing/forced/etc. to use some
lenses in AF format, and therefore to accept icky-feeling
aperture rings, loose focus rings, glass that is
floppy in the barrel, funny noises, etc., it hardly
seems appropriate to complain about other expectable
shortcomings of the type. Junky feel is junky feel,
regardless of the particulars... (And, do you complain
about the similar telescoping mechanical action of the
60mm macro? Probably not, and I see as much/little
problem with that in terms of alignment and sealing
as with the 24-120mm.) BTW, "E" Nikkors, which seem
now almost paragons of quality compared with most AF
lenses, were a shocking cheapening of the usual Nikkor
physical quality standards when introduced. Rather than
quibble over the particulars of our distaste for AF
lenses, let's all join together in bemoaning the general
reduction of quality of feel of recent photo equipment
offerings (or just stick with the fine, fortunately
still current, Nikkor AIS lens and Nikon MF body offerings
and let the market dictate what we get in the future...;-).
Hope This Helps