Hello- I am a portrait and landscape photographer about to embark on the challenge of wedding photography. I have read and taken into account the many warnings given to a previous lister about to shoot a friend's wedding. I use two bodies, an N90s and an N70. I know that I need another lens between my 20mm/f2.8 anf my 85/f1.8, but I don't think my 35-70 is going to be wide enough. I am very attracted to the 24-120 as an only lens for weddings (and travel, for that matter), but am curious about the experiences of others. I am very fond of my fast primes, but really liked the feel and potential convenience of the 24-120 as it might mean I can keep both camera bodies active without changing lenses. I've read great reviews, but want to separate magazine hype from photographer's experience with reality. How is the 24-120 for: 1. Sharpness (my 20/2.8 and 85/1.8 are tack sharp) 2. Viewfinder brightness (again, the 85 is wonderful) 3. Wideangle vignetting with circular polarizer or 25A red (I shoot a lot of infrared, but not with weddings) 4. Portraits with reasonably shallow depth of field (I love the 85/f1.8 wide open!) By the way, my 35-70/f3.3-4.5 macro is for sale. $90 and I'll pay for Priority Mail shipping to your door (within the US). Thanks much, Brad Bradley Hanson Seattle, WA http://www.hansonphotography.com
