On 24 Jan 2003 05:32:47 -0800, mhb@clearether.com (Michael Benveniste) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:

<3e330f70.6575960@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

>> Are you aware that non-CPU lenses, like the 105 and 135

>> mentioned, are not metered properly by the F80? I think,

>> vast as Nikon's lens line is, it is missing some

>> "main-line" entries, like a good, inexpensive 105mm f2.5

>> and 135mm f2.8 (and top-class 35mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 - and

>> a 70-210mm f4 constant-aperture zoom).

>While you and I consider them mainline, apparently Nikon's fallen

>into the false dichotomy trap:

> Consumers: Care about price and weight. No need for primes

> or fast lenses. Indifferent about quality.

> Pros: Care about quality and speed. Will buy the fastest

> primes and "pro" zooms. Indifferent about price and

> weight.

>

>Turning to the lenses you mention:

> 105mm f/2.5 -- I admit it's bizarre, but I've never owned nor used

> this lens. I went the 105 micro route instead.

> 135mm f/2.8 -- Absolutely.

> 35mm f/2 -- At this point, the rep of this lens is poison and I'm

> not sure that a "new" version will salvage it. I'd

> suggest Nikon releases a "new" f/1.8 version and let

> it double as the normal lens for Digitals.

> 28mm f/2.8 -- Never missed this one, as I prefer 24mm. But if Nikon

> is going to offer it, get it right.

>70-210mm f/4 -- If the optics were on a par with the f/2.8, I'd buy

> immediately. (Or 80-200, 70-200, etc).

>The other holes I see are a 400mm lens in the 4.5-5.6 range, and the

>lack of a real AF 1.4x teleconverter.

Your list is more complete, and "right-on"!

There are some AF lenses, though, that are

outstanding and not in the MF line (*though

they work just fine on MF bodies*, unlike the

reverse, sometimes...), like the 85mm f1.8AF,

180mm f2.8AF, 17-35AF, 80-200mm f2.8AFs,

300mm f4AFs, etc.