In article <316A8360.780F6DB1@nodc.noaa.gov>, jburney@nodc.noaa.gov says...
>Bob Neuman wrote:

>> The Tokina is very unlikely to match this performance, for which
>> you will have a wider focusing aperture, and a larger and heavier
>> lens. If speed at all costs is the thing, get the Tokina - but
>> you did say that quality was important, not that the quality of
>> the Tokina is low.....
>> Hope This Helps

>can't really argue with empirical data like "very unlikely"
>can we. how about some supporting documentation.

Uh, your point is well taken (I have not tried the Tokina in question),
But you did delete the following from your quote of what I said:

"Perhaps I should elaborate: The 100-300mm f5.6 Nikkor is really
excellent center-to-corner, all focal-lengths, all apertures, and it
is unusually low in distortion (it has none over most of its range)."

And my experience with several other Tokinas would indicate that
the lens in question would be unlikely to equal the quality of the
unusually fine Nikkor 100-300mm f5.6 (which is also good at all focus distances, very unlike the Tokina zooms I have tried). And few Nikkor
zooms equal the quality of the 100-300mm f5.6, so I would be very
surprised if the Tokina is up to it in performance. Is that sufficient
for you? ;-)
Hope This Helps