Positives:
The practicality. There are all focal lengths used, the images are sharp and vivid in everyday photography, the image center is actually getting "D800-friendly". The close range is also good, you can flowers etc. quite well put into the picture.
In good light, the AF is perfect, VR works, certainly not with 4 aperture gain, I expect two to max. 3 f. Haptic / version quality is the lens for everyday wear / travel photography i. O.
Negatives:
The haptic / mechanic in the special case and the imaging performance to the back corners and edges. I suggest to me like the nights with (like even HDR) urban and architectural shots around the ears (stable tripod, VR off) and would almost any price to pay similar focal range for a really high-resolution, edge definition universal objective - because exactly my 24- 120 not really good at. In such pictures can be nice hike with the eyes, at times also 1: 2 or 1: 1 on the big screen, and it is obvious that the last 5-10% sites are much lower quality on both (narrow) than the advanced image center. I would say so about as if one adheres to a 36 MP receiving a few cm a coma afflicted 6 MP receiving the right and left. That has not been solved even in Bl. 8 and not yet disappeared at 11. Besides the fact that 8 such as the beneficial Aperture for D800 and the light evenings and nights not abundant. This behavior bothers me even in normal landscape shots if z. B. are displayed worse the outer apparent in trees in the park or forest. I'd 'like to hold the outer elements sharp. Clear - who photographed portraits so that the iris or the eyelashes of the model usually is not placed on the screen, and do not mind, so
For mentioned Haptikeinschränkung: especially in low light you MUST to focus when Tripod Photography with the D800 via LiveView. Although the normal phase AF is willing to distant buildings lit sharply, only not exactly reliable. I do this manually with Live View, and since the miserable game in distance ring and the whole anything but "rich" or "velvety" run is already annoying. You have to drive on the right and left of the focus repeatedly, much more than with a lens with better focus ring. It can not really be that that so much would have been more expensive to implement a proper manual focus.
I have now ordered my resignation for my hobby architecture, the AF-S 24-70. I do not indeed a little too "short", but at least be on the tripod neither weight nor interfere lack VR. Let's see if the beats better. The Tamron coming to me because of the ludicrous quality problems out of the question.
For all daily tasks but I'll keep my already convincingly practical and versatile 24-120. The star trigger there because of the described last Quäntchens on quality, but lacks maintenance.
Addendum: now I have several times the acclaimed 2.8 Nikkor 24-70 used. What can I say: it is really very good in the middle (where the 24-120 is also fine), but the edges are not much better in my opinion. And please do not tell now, one should a zoom does not work for architecture (one can not always go with fixed focal lengths walk solve) - I'm not talking of distortion that you have to accept, but think that you at an expensive, large, severe, moderate focal length is not very wide-ranging zoom can expect quite that dimmed by two to 3 values, the edges are sharp. I also have the 24-70 compared (by the same recording point of view) shots at 70 mm with the 80 mm focal length of 2.8 mm 80-200 AF-D (turning) zoom. Result: Feather of 80-200ers is better at 80 mm and aperture of 4-8 FAR, which would give me quite sufficient. So I will remain in the everyday life at 24-120 and wait with resignation until someone times brings a really sharp edge standard zoom on the market.