On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:33:35 -0600, "Jim MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote:

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

>news:3e7a1e28.2127080@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> 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...

>I played with one once (D), and loved it, but I didn't give it a thorough

>test. I guess I expected you to think more of it.

>

>Then again, I owned the 35-135/3.5-4.5 and mine performed much better than

>any review of the lens suggested. Perhaps I got lucky.

>

>Most of the rest of my lenses seem to more or less match the reviews, so

>they seem more typical of their ilk.

A lot depends on how the lens is used. For me,

I need good performance nearly wide open with

zooms, since they are slow and I generally

hand-hold 35mm gear. Some zooms that are

"ho-hum" in performance wider than about f8

will then not be given as good a rating at

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html as ones

that perform better at f5.6 or f4. In the

case of the 35-135 Nikkor (and 35-105D), the

edge performance was not up to my standards

for good performance at stops wider than

around f8 - but by f8, the 35-135 is a very

crisp, "snappy" lens... (If you shoot it at

smaller stops, it is a great lens! ;-) The

MF/early-AF version of the 35-105 Nikkor

(if you find a good sample - these were quite

variable, as is the potentially excellent

28-105 Nikkor) can be excellent even

"wide"-open, making it a better lens for

me...