On 17 Mar 1999 22:40:01 GMT, fchldray@aol.com (FCHLDRAY) wrote:

[most deleted...]
> But I would think that most
>picky people--like advanced amateurs--would find this lens less than desirable.
>However, it is not defective and doesn't lend itself to these horror stories
>posted here and elsewhere--any more or less than other amateur lenses.

I suspect it was defective - not at all uncommon with
wide-range zooms, especially ones including wide angle...
This interesting review is quite at odds with my experience
with this lens (under "I babble" on my web page...), which
I found remarkably good (for a wide-angle, wide-range
zoom...) at f5.6, and amazingly good at f11 (if one could
get by with using this one stop, the results are first-rate
[I couldn't, so I sold the lens - I don't consider most
mid-range zooms very "convenient", since for performance
approaching that of non-zooms, they need to be stopped
down "inconveniently" far for easy hand-holding in other
than good light]). Any wide-range zoom that is also
fairly wide-angle, and which can produce a sharp image
everywhere in the frame at all FL's (even if only at a
couple of stops), is pretty remarkable... If the above
limitations are acceptable, you may want to try another...