I have the 24-120 on a D800. I do not make money from my gear but I do appreciate it\'s qualities.
I have used a friend\'s 24-70 and I have compared it to my 24-120. The 24-120 is a great lens. It is not as robust (read:heavy as in metal) as the 24-70. The 24-70 is, in my eyes, superior, but not that much. I would rather have the 24-120, have more range and less heft. To me, the reason to get the 24-70 over the 24-120 is if you truly need 2.8 over f4. I couldn\'t justify the price jump for one stop, not at least for what I shoot.
Yes, the 24-120 vignettes a bit but the corners are good to very good wide open. Stop it to 5.6 and you are game. Do not drink the multi-forum cool aid. It is a very nice lens. I shot a wedding for a cousin of mine and while it would have been awesome to have the 24-70 for the 2.8 under those shooting, dark conditions, I never hesitated to shoot the 24-120 wide open. It\'s good.
barrel distortion and vignettes are easily fixed in lightroom.
Making a perfect lens with no aberrations while being sharp across the frame costs a lot of money. Lens design is a compromise as prices have to be, in the end, affordable. If not we\'d all shoot Leica and Zeiss glass. Don\'t drink the cool aid, really.
And yes, good for you that you cleared your intentions but I would have taken you for trolling after reading your first post. I see that is not the case.
Edit: FWIW, sharpest lens I have used in my D800 is the 85 f1.8. Cuts like a razor.
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Previous versions of Guari's message #11081675 « Standard zooms for Nikon FF? »
