It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@spraynpray: or should I say "Not a Hater" ;-) said:" I can honestly say that I'm not a 24-120 hater, I'm just underwhelmed by it. It should perform better like it's stablemate, the 70-200 f4. ..."So what exactly underwhelmed you? It won't perform like the 70-200 optically because it's not a 70-200. Using DXO mark for objective data, the 24-120 f/4.0 is certainly better than the 3.5-5.6 version. There really aren’t any direct comparisons in the after-market lenses, there’s the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 both of which really aren’t any better (no worse either). Really if you’re looking at one of them you’re far better off with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 because it is significantly better and has the price to go with it. The Sigma 24-104 Art lens sound very interesting but hasn’t been reviewed, it does sound like it could give Nikon a run for their money.Another thing the Nikon 70-200 is kind of in a class of it’s own. Nikon has been making lenses in this range for what? 50 years? They know how to make them and they are great. I have the older 80-200 f/2.8D, it’s so good I have found a reason to upgrade.As far as my snapshot (no offence taken) I was looking at the RAW file as well as the JPG and frankly at 200% it’s pretty sharp. You can go to zumbachphotography.com, it will just re-direct you to my Flickr page and see the full Res JPG.Funny thing, like I said I only got the lenses because it was a good deal. I was told Nikon probably put it in the kit because it wasn’t selling well on it's own. So I wasn’t expecting much and have been pleasantly surprised.
Re flare issue, Nikon is said to working on fix already.https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/19336/session/L3RpbWUvMTQxOTg3MzI4Mi9zaWQvdkN5MWQ3Ym0%3D
Just installed the update. Has anyone notice changes?