"TP" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message news:igq2d05ud6o135bso1flcoo6s5kma1ooln@4ax.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

[...]

> > This lens

> >has the potential for being both excellent optically, and

> >very useful due to the stabilizer - and the three samples I

> >tried were good enough to please most - but I was not

> >satisfied (OK, I know I'm a nut about good optical alignment,

> >and it is going to take longer for Nikon to get this better....).

> David,

>

> What makes you think that Nikon are ever going to get this any better?

>

> Tony

They did it with the first version, as I pointed out in the

earlier post with, "...more recent samples of the non-VR

were consistent, and quite excellent". Four out of four

late versions of the non-VR I tried were excellent and

well-aligned, but the early version of it I had was just

"good", and I sold it almost immediately. As I said, I

now regret selling one of those last four, that I owned...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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