In article <33F08278.635A@uiowa.edu>, mark-s-peterson@uiowa.edu says...
[...]

>There appears to be quite a bit of variation between different samples
>of
>the same Nikkor zoom model, as regularly reported here in rec.photo.*
>and in Bob Neuman's Nikkor subjective lens test reports. I tested the
>same two lenses as John has mentioned -- the 35-70 f2.8D and the 35-105
>f3.5-4.5D -- and my findings were exactly the opposite. That is, the
>35-70 f2.8 was sharper, brighter, and more contrasty than the
>35-105 at all FLs and all apertures. However, I believe that if I'd
>have had a different sample of one or the other lenses, my results
>might have been quite different. Now, I'm not saying that the 35-105
>was bad -- it was excellent. But in my test I could see why the 35-70
>carries such a higher pricetag.

Hmmm, it is the AIS 35-105 (and, possibly, the same-optical-design
early AF 35-105...) that suffers unusually high (for Nikon...) sample
variation. The two-each samples of the 35-70 f2.8 and 35-105 AF-D
that I tried did not show as much sample variation (though that is a
small sampling, and there was a bit of difference in the two 35-70's).
I found both lenses to be very good, with the 35-70 generally a bit
better - but maybe not up to its reputation (primes are a hard
reference! ;-). BTW, you can find my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations
(Mostly Nikkors)" on my web page, under "I babble"...;-)

>My point, though, is that you should try to shoot some slides
>through a couple of lenses that you are comparing, to determine
>which is most suitable to your quality standards in terms of
>sharpness, color rendition, and image contrast. That's the best
>way to determine "which is better" for you.

Good advice! (Though it can drive one n-u-t-s...!!! ;-)
Hope This Helps
(David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether )
>Mark Peterson