In fact, I wonder what is it I did when I didn't have this lens... As noticeable above, while not a macro, it's remarkably close. The photo above was taken in a store at Hinsdale, IL, at a focal length of 70mm, and not quite close to the subject (farther than one foot), wide open. Yet the detail is amazing.
Of course, if to the quality of the lens we add the miracle of D-Lighting (which saved this duck from looking quite gloomy), this is some winning duo. I cannot recall the exact focal length at which this photograph was made, but it was not 70mm. Light at my in-laws's home, where this shot was taken, was natural, coming in from a window.
At the risk of sounding corny I must admit that I really cannot find fault with this lens. Any further attempt at "reviewing" it would sound sycophantic. Despite its bulk (which is severe), it's a lens to have and keep. With my AF-S 24-85 G I used to sense a bit of a warm tone through the viewfinder whenever I used the lens in my F100 and my F5. The AF-S 24-120 VR was excessively dim in the film bodies, and even in the D700. The Sigma AF 24-70 was heavy and noisy, but this one? It's perfect! Even if the zoom turns in the opposite direction of the Sigma's, the adaptation process is relatively easy. And the fact that the zoom does not change its size in noticeable form (the protrusion always stays under the hood) makes it even better. But one thing should be noted: this lens is conspicuous. It has a nice design, but it is not discrete. My theory is that professional cameras and lenses need not to be discrete because they were designed for professional image takers, who are going to be conspicuous thanks to their cameras. If the camera (and its user) can be spotted a mile away, why bother making the lens small or light?