Hi--

>Reading opinions on Nikon lenses in Nikon web sites. Your opinions most
helpful, so hope you don't mind me asking another opinion!
>
>I use an AF 35-135 (3.5-4.5) and a 80-200 2.8 ED, both Nikkor. I like
the small(er) lens but it us not up to the quality of the biggun.
>I use primes for portraits, but often a potrait presents itself out of
the blue. Fine if the 80-200 is attached - beautiful lens. Just Ok if
the 35-135 is on.
>
>Is there a zoom up to the quality of Nikon's 80-200 in the smaller
range - they do not seem to make "ED" lenses in this range.
>
>The 24-120 cannot match the 4.5 apperture of the 35-135 at the long end
and when I am caught with the 35 -135 I can even catch a portrait that
has narrow depth! Try that on a 24-120!
>
>There may be no answer. Nikon don't even make the 35-135 now and I find
it a useful candid range, with some portrait ability; just not up to ED
quality.
>
>I've never tried the third party zooms but hear they uniformly do not
measure up to Nikon.
>
>Any advice most appreciated
>
>Regards
>
>Greg
>glams@bigpond.net.au

There are a couple of possibilities, most discontinued
the 50-135 f3.5 Nikkor; the Tamron 28-135 f4-4.5; the
Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-4.5 - the first two are longer and
sharper wide open, but hard to find; the first is the
best throughout its range, and fastest at the long end.
I prefer non-zooms below the tele zoom, like a 24/28,
or 20 and 35, with maybe the excellent 85mm f1.8 AF
added. With short lenses, the gain in speed and ease of
use is worth more than the zoom ability (I can often walk
faster than I can reframe with a short zoom...).