On 22 Jan 2003 08:17:23 -0800, brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:

[...]

>It would be a pity if Nikon is mistakenly using an

>inferior design for their latest version of the 50/1.8 when they had

>it done correctly decades ago. Fortunately there are plenty of the

>older lenses available on the used market.

>Brian

>www.caldwellphotographic.com

Unfortunately, newer lens designs are not always better.

(See www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html for a Nikkor

evaluation list...) Examples I can think of, in the Nikon

line: the 21mm f4 was better than the 20mm f3.5 that

replaced it, which was better than the compact 20s that

replaced that (though Nikon got it right with the next one,

the excellent 20mm f2.8...;-); the 15mm f5.6 was better

than the 15mm f3.5 that replaced it; the 16mm f3.5 was

better than the 16mm f2.8 that replaced it (the 16mm f3.5

Nikkor is a VERY good lens!); the 28mm f4 PC was a better

lens than most samples I've seen of the 28mm f3.5 PC; the

70-210 f4 was better than the f4-5.6 version; the 75-300

was better than the two later 70-300s (though the long

gone 100-300 was the best of all); the 500mm f8 mirror

was better than the compact macro version that replaced

it - but most other replacement lenses in a very actively

evolving lens line are equal to or better than the earlier

versions (the 85mm f1.8 AF and 180mm f2.8 are the best yet

in long series of excellent versions, as is the 300 f4 S,

etc. - and the expensive versions of the zooms are MUCH

better than some early versions...).