Pros:
* efficient image stabilization,
* very good image quality in the frame centre for the whole range of focal lengths,
* not bothersome distortion on the DX sensor,
* low astigmatism,
* negligible vignetting on the DX sensor and acceptable vignetting on full frame,
* good work against bright light,
* silent, quite quick and efficient autofocus.
Cons:
* very high chromatic aberration near the maximum relative aperture,
* low quality of image on the edge of full frame near the maximum relative aperture,
* significant distortion on full frame,
* noticeable coma.
The Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR, despite several flaws, is a well-done lens for sure. I would sing the praises of it for several paragraphs if only the price was lower. Currently it costs about 1140 $ and it is really a significant amount of money. First and foremost it is much more expensive than its slower predecessor which can be still bought for the sum three times lower. I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all,
an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag.
A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate.
Perhaps the steep price of the tested Nikkor stems from the fact that we deal with a novelty here. If it is true I would recommend postponing the purchase. There are really no reasons whatsoever why you should spend on this lens more than on the Canon 24–105 mm f/4.0L IS USM, which nowadays can be bought for a bit over 1000 $.