"brian" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote in message news:3c459ba.0307170434.372bec75@posting.google.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<bf44im$2rn$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...

> > I find that almost all *good* *well-aligned* lenses for 35mm perform about the same

> > from around f8 through the smaller stops, with f16 showing a touch of acceptable

> > resolution loss, and f22 at the edge of what I like (usable if necessary for DOF,

> > but otherwise to be avoided). All the good Nikkor wides are good to the corners

> > from f5.6 to f16 (though they may be a bit better in the center toward the wide end

> > of that range, and a bit better towards the corners toward the middle of that range).

> At f/8 and slower the main aberration residuals in 35mm format lenses

> will be lateral color and distortion (neither of which is affected by

> stopping down), and here there can be big differences between various

> wide angles. The 17-35 zoom is significantly better stopped down than

> any of the wide angle primes I've tested, including the 35/1.4,

> 28/2.0, 24/2.0, 20/2.8, and 28/3.5PC.

> Brian

> www.caldwellphotographic.com

I agree, hence my specification, "all *good* *well-aligned* lenses for 35mm

perform about the same"...;-)

The differences among the above from f8-f22 are minimal, if discernable at all,

though the exceptional lens that performs a bit above the others is possible,

and the 17-35mm Nikkor is excellent (reviewed and compared with other

Nikkors at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html).

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!