Hi--

>I may change my mind about my Tokina 17/3.5AFD after I use it some more.
>For whatever regard you hold for the man, Fred Whitlock seemed
>to think his was decent, as well.

It was Fred's lens that I bought.....;-) He had sent me some fairly
large JPG's that looked good (and some small ones from a zoom [Tokina?]
that didn't...;-) - but the lens was disappointing (not really sharp
at the edges/corners at any stop., and only good in the center stopped
down. Comparing it with the Nikkor 20mm was like the proverbial
night and day...;-) Maybe not bad for snap-shooting, but not really
even second-rate, I thought (though it did show no alignment problems).
Fred kindly took it back...

>Incidently, I do agree with you about the 24/2 wide open. I have an old
>AId'D 28/2 with the knurled focusing ring that is quite decent wide open,
>certainly better than the 24/2. 24 wide open is low contrast with less
>than sterling resolution. However, projected slides (I also
>evaluate with an 8X loupe) still look sharp; maybe not quite 3
>dimensionally sharp, but sharp. Of course, my tolerance may be a bit
>higher since the photos were taken under some appalling lighting
>conditions.

That may "help"...;-) It wasn't too bad wide-open, just very low contrast,
and somewhat "diffuse"-looking around the edges. I've seen much worse,
and could see using it under some difficult conditions - but I sold
both I've had... An old 28mm f2 I had was pretty good at f2, and very
good at f2.8 - though without wirey "zing" even stopped down. Much as
I like good wide-stop performance, I also like the hard, "wirey" look...
(which is why I've moved from the excellent 35mm f1.4 to the
higher-contrast 35mm f2 MF [multi-coated...]). Sometimes I keep two
versions of a FL, one for speed, one for better contrast...

>While I always try to be careful when shooting, the reality is that
>during my normal shooting, my focusing accuracy frequently falls well
>short of what a good lens is capable of delivering in terms sharpness.
>This does not mean my shots are not sharp, just they have not achieved
>maximum sharpness. I expect this is true of most people, to a greater or
>lesser extent. I am probably on a par with most AF cameras, which is
>less than the best. When I test lenses I use a focusing magnifier, which
>frequently is slightly different focus point than the nakid eye.

Yes. Sharp as my sight used to be, and well as I could see a sharp
finder (so many of the newer cameras do not have sharp finders...),
when checking 200mm + or so lenses with targets a couple of miles
away, it was necessary to "focus-bracket" for accuracy... With short
lenses, good enough focus accuracy is not hard, particularly with
distant subjects (with super-wides, excellent focus accuracy can be
had by scale-focusing).

>What are your thoughts on this, in terms of your passion for the best
>performing lenses. For example, at distance x on Tmax 100 lens A is
>capable of delivering 65 lpm, while lens B can only deliver 40 lpm, both
>assuming completely accurate focusing. But we don't reliably achieve
>completely accurate focusing, and typically lose a bit more through hand
>holding the camera. In practical terms will the results between the two
>lenses be much different?

Probably not, if the contrast is very similar and the image magnification
is not very high... But if lens B also has poor corner resolution and
A is pretty good in the corners, A wins handily...;-) Most Nikkor primes
by a reasonable stop (different for different FL's) will produce sharp
images - but the difference between the Nikkors and the off-brands is
often in the edges/corners at a given stop, and also in what the widest
good stop is. I prefer lenses that perform well everywhere in the frame,
and which do it at usefully wide stops (and which are really-zingy sharp
by f5.6 or so for very-wides, f2-2.8 or so for moderate-wides, normals,
and teles...;-). BTW, always surprising to me is the fact that even in
an 8x10 print 35mm negatives can contain detail not easily seen in the
print (excess sharpness...), yet an equal-resolution print made from a
larger format will look better. Also surprising to me is that 35mm
negatives that I would consider soft under a 10X magnifier can make
good-looking 8x10 prints...;-) Ah, perceptions...! ;-)