On 4/27/2011 9:30 AM, Rich wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:25 am, "Michael wrote:
wrote:
I figure at least four up to the new f4.0 unit. Never well-regarded,
but the new one did allow Nikon to almost double the price from the
last one from about $700 to $1200.



I tried one on the D300. The 16-85 wipes the floor with it.

REALLY?

How well does the 16-85 work at 105mm?? Do a direct comparison.

I own Canon, not Nikon, but I own a Canon 24-105 f/4L lens.
Its a good lens, but at the top of its range the much cheaper
70-300 I own is much better. Over some of its range the
extremely cheap (as in flimsy and low cost) 17-55 kit lens
is equally good (but lacks IS). This in on crop frame.

But neither 70-300 nor 17-55 is a good general lens.
The 24-105 is.

Doug McDonald