In article <30E5722D.21E2@intex.net>, lutece9@intex.net says...
(about the 35-135mm Nikkor)
>INMO I bought the 35-70 2.8D because of 2 reasons: 1. it is a much
>faster lens allowing me to shoot when the amount of light is lower
>and thus more beautiful and interesting (ie. twilight and dusk) and
>2. because when you don't demand the optical designers to give you
>such a huge zoom range (35-135) they can create a lens with better
>optics, sharper image, les lens flare, fewer aberrations, and on and
>on and on. The only downside is that I have to pick up my feet and
>walk closer to my subject with my 35-70 2.8D. The quality of light
>and the quality of optics are more important than the convenience
>of 35-135 zoom range.

In general, I would agree, though the 35-135mm Nikkor is excellent
across the frame by mid apertures, and I was not too impressed
with the 35-70mm f2.8 at wide apertures. I thought a good sample
of the MF and early AF 35-105 (good samples of the MF, at least,
are surprisingly rare...) was better, and only about a stop slower
(average). The Winnah, and True Champeen, however, is the 28-135mm
Tamron SP - lower in contrast, and with a lot of distortion at
the long end, but a nearly constant f4-4.5 throughout, and good
to the corners wide open (and throughout the long zoom and focus
range [though dropping in the corners below about 45mm in macro]) -
a wonderful lens that is no longer made, alas.
Hope this helps.