On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:13:57 -0400, "Aidan" wrote:

>Am debating replacing my Nikkor 24-120 with a new lens when I get a new body
>because although I really love the range it covers, I'm not overly pleased
>with the image quality I've seen. I'm considering the Sigma (I know, I
>know, Third Party) 24-70 f/2.8 EX, the reviews seem to be pretty good as far
>as third party lenses go and I really like the 2.8 thing. Not so hot about
>the reduced range though. A sale of the 24-120 would cover most of the cost
>of the Sigma but I just don't know. So far I have all Nikon glass in the
>bag because of a Sigma I used a while back and wasn't at all pleased with.
>Could this be the turning point though? For about 1/4 of the cost of the
>equivalent Nikkor it is very tempting. Anyone compared the two lenses at
>all (24-120 and the Sigma)? Are they even in the same league to be
>compared? Any experiences with either or both lenses would be much
>appreciated. Thanks much.

Borrow another sample of the 24-120 - you may have a
poor one. This lens is surprising in that normally it is sharp
to the corners wide-open, quite unusual for wide-range
zooms... It is VERY unlikely any replacement with about
the same range will perform as well as a good sample of the
24-120 Nikkor - and the f2.8 28-70's I've seen aren't very
good at the widest two stops, so what is the point...?
Your best bet (other than replacing the 24-120 with
non-zooms, and you may not see all that much improvement,
especially at the short end, except in the availability
of wider stops), is replacing the 24-120 with a better
sample...