M. Subramanian wrote in article <34305E77.C7181D83@netropolis.net>...

> I need some help. Is it true that the longer zoom like 35-135 or 24-120
> would yield lower quality pictures. Is it good to split the zoom ranges
> into smaller zooms like 28-70 for wide angle range and 70-210 for
> farther objects. I am still a rookie and trying to learn photographic in
> a proper way. Please advice. You guys are having wonderful newsgroup
> with lots of info.

Generally it is true that a shorter-range zoom is likely to be better
than a longer-range one (and the shortest-range zoom of all, the
prime lens, is likely to be better yet...;-), though the Nikkor 24-120mm
is unusually good, and better than most other Nikkor wide-to-tele
Nikkors. (There is an early review of it on my web page, under
"I babble"...) If you prefer to use a zoom, be prepared to use it at
smaller stops for best performance in most cases (good for some
purposes wide-open, but noticeably better at f11...) - if you prefer
excellent wide-aperture performance, stay with primes (or the
80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor, and a few other Nikkor tele zooms...
[you can find a listing of all Nikkor lens optical types, with an
evaluation of many of them, at the same web site...]).

> Any advice or experience on purchasing lens from Cameraworld of Oregan.

Excellent, as is B & H in NYC...
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether