On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:54:58 GMT, Magnus W <vader@death-star.spam-trap.com> wrote:

>Magnus W <vader@death-star.spam-trap.com> wrote in

>news:Xns93341AB651F1Dvaderdeathstar@212.83.64.229:

>> wasn't one of the

>> standard zooms, 24-120 or so, regarded as pretty bad?

>Not that one, judging from your site; I have to wonder which lens I thought

>of. 35-105? Dunno. The point still stands however -- you happened to pick

>pretty much the worst Minolta lenses, especially the worst fixed focal

>length lens they make ;-)

Yes, this is possible...;-)

BTW, it was the 43-86, LONG replaced with a better version,

then discontinued many years ago, but that was the point -

until the advent of the $100 AF junk in the Nikkor line,

it was VERY HARD to find ANY mediocre or poor lenses in a

VERY EXTENSIVE lens line... Also BTW, In the past, I found

the Minolta 28mm f2.8 MF fairly good, the 16mm f2.8

acceptable only at very small stops, the normals excellent

(including that macro tried more recently), the mirror 250

very good, and the 135mm f3.5 MF excellent - but the point

is that in the Nikkor line, even though it is much more

extensive, MUCH less "cherry-picking" was necessary when

buying to get a good set of lenses compared with other brands,

extensive or not (but true now only if one avoids

the low-end "G" lenses...;-).