Looking at a few all-around lenses for Nikon mount...help?

[pianisimo]

Hey all, I'm using a D50 and I want a fairly cheap lens ($250-$500) somewhere between 18mm and 150mm. So far I'm looking at:

Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR
Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 G
Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 (macro?)

I don't want a Sigma or a Tamron, I like to stick to all Nikon stuff and don't like the build quality of those lenses (18-50, 17-55) as much as Nikon's stuff. I also DON'T want a Nikkor 18-200 VR. Between the expensive price, the rumors of lens creep, and the availability these days, the 24-120 VR is almost a better lens (plus now sharper?), and for much cheaper. So. Has anyone used or owned these? I keep leaning towards one but then want another. I don't care about the speed, even of the 24-120 VR...I'm not looking for something fast, just something I can slap on my camera and use for most things in general.

[prinothcat]

Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR To my eye probably the most useful of the three. I like VR. although a quick look at goggle says this is a 600-700usd lens. http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 G http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm For my tastes not wide enough nor long enough. I prefer the 18-135 f/3,5-5.6 DX.

Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 (macro?) Only if you wanted the extra 1 stop of speed. priced from the mid 200's to nearly 400 online... plastic build, appears to be a consumer grade lens. Not that that's bad, just expect that it's not going to be as well built as the 24-100 at 3x the price. this might be the lens reviewed here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2485afs.htm

Personally I like to go wider than 24mm (24mm x 1.6=38mm full frame equivalent on a DX sensor). 24mm isn't quite the same as a 35mm film standard 50mm lens and it's not quite wide angle either. I share your bias toward Nikkor lenses but will add that there are a couple of lenses by Tokina that get good reviews and can almost compete with the Nikkors for build quality.

The best test would be to go hold each in your hand and see if they elt you shoot some images with each. One will be the clear winner in your mind.

[pianisimo]

First of all, I completely agree that 24mm isn't going to satisfy me. But I think I want a separate lens for anything less. My dad is getting a 20mm soon (he has a D80...and he used a 35mm f/2 pentax back in the good ol' days, which is now mine for my pentax film body). I use his 18-70 a lot. I just can't find a good lens at 18 that goes to something else. I would get the 18-135 but it's a kit lens (which means plastic mount and lots of error messages because it's too heavy for its mount, from what I've read). Otherwise that would be a perfect lens for me. I can definitely get a 24-120 VR on ebay for about $300; I just watched one go for $312 in excelent condition. I tried out the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 at a Ritz today, and it doesn't have its own silent-wave motor, so I don't want it. I had to use it manually with one of their D40's. I'll use the camera's internal motor when I have to (like on the 50mm f/1. but the noise of it is just so much louder and more irritating. The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is very similar to the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, but hey...I don't know. It's only a bit cheaper and I wouldn't mind owning the same thing as my dad.

So basically I mostly have my heart set on the 24-120 VR.

-The 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is basically the same as my dad's lens, but less wide and more zoom. I wouldn't mind having it and I can find it fairly cheaply on eBay. But not my first choice.

-The 24-85 f/2.8-4 is nice and fast, but expensive (Ritz has it for $600, although I can find it for $200-300 less online), big, clunky, old, and no silent-wave motor. I actually perfer the G lenses to the ones with the aperture ring because it seems to use less space without it, and I'm never going to use these lenses on old Nikon film cameras. So this one's a definite NO. Although the macro feature would be nice and it seemed to work well from the manual focusing I did in Ritz.

-The 24-120 VR looks the best so far. Definitely under $400 on ebay (which I trust...mostly), VR, cheaper than the 18-200 VR without the lens creep and the low availability, and honestly, pretty much the right focal length for what I'm looking for. Thank you for your help! Really appreciate it.

Oh, and don't EVER link to kenrockwell.com. Haha...well, I already read that review. But I hate most of his opinions.

[pianisimo]

In case anyone's curious, I went for the 24-120mm VR. Got one for $300 and it's coming soon (about $250-350 cheaper than list price).