On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:23:21 +0100, "Only Me..." wrote:
>Neuman-Ruether wrote in message
><360777f3.4229751@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>>On 20 Sep 1998 14:17:56 GMT, ksiron@aol.com (KSiron) wrote:

>>>i just bought it for my n90s and its terrific, i love it!! It worth
>buying,
>>>trust me!!

>>The three I tried were OK, but not up to my standards for good
>>Nikkors...

> I just read a lens test, and the 70~300 won it, easily. It was up
>against the equivalent Canon, and Pentax lenses, as well as the independents
>too.

Why am I not surprised...? ;-)
Compared with the Canon lenses in the same range, at least, it
may well be better (these don't have a very high reputation for
sharpness...), though I gave up long ago depending on magazine
test reports for telling me what is good... What I said was,
"The three I tried were OK, but not up to my standards for good
Nikkors...", and they weren't. Until recently, Nikkor long zooms
were consistently sharp throughout their ranges to the corners
wide open. The 70-210 f4-5.6 was not, and the 70-300 is not.
This is a basic performance level I expect from Nikkor
tele-zooms, and I was not happy with the 70-300, good as it
may be for someone with lower expectations... BTW, I found
the 75-300 sharper, the 100-300 sharper yet, and the 80-200
f2.8 + TC14C the sharpest of all I've tried in this range
(I have not tried the 50-300mm f4.5 ED).