On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:59:04 -0600, "Jim MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e7da764.16043276@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> I would recommend the 24-120, though the 28-105 looks

>> promising (if I could find a good sample - these are

>> often out of alignment) and has the lowest linear

>> distortion; the AF 35-105 is a good-but-unimpressive

>> lens I rarely use...

>The AF 35-105/3.5-4.5 is a totally different animal from the AF

>35-105/3.5-4.5 D which is much smaller and lighter and incorporates aspheric

>elements.

Yes, you are right. I prefer the performance of the

earlier one in a good sample (kinda rare, at least

in the MF version...), and found the AF-D rather

"unexciting" in performance...