On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:53:23 GMT, wrote:

>> Hmm, I think the Series E 70-210 and the constant aperture 4/70-210 AF
>> (same optics) are very good. Mine is certainly sharp at F4.

>Yes these lenses are a bit better than the ones we're talking about. Sharp
>at F4, though, is a stretch. These lenses usually don't sharpen up in the
>corners until f8 or so.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........! ;-)
I have had quite a few of these, and all were sharp to the corners wide open (though contrast is not the
highest I
have seen in Nikkors...) I think you have a bad one.
I still have two (I valued it *that* much) even with
an 80-200f2.8 due to its smaller size and weight. It is
even pretty good on a TC14A by one stop down, giving a
compact 100-300 or so option. Overall, it is a tad less "able" than the famous E 75-150, but close enough
that I
sold that one to go for the wider range 70-210 f4E (which
is also sharper than any Series I 80-200 that I have
seen...). Now I would like to find the original-version
Nikkor 70-210 f4 (constant) AF, which is the same design
and better than the slower 70-210 f4-5.6 AF Nikkor.
BTW, also, the 70-210 is pretty low in linear distortion
as zooms go...
For more, see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html

>> > > Also, PS--opinions about the Nikkor 135 mm f/3.5 (also AI).

>> Currently one of my favorite lenses. Tiny, and very sharp all
>> over the frame. It is not that well-know because most people
>> got the F2.8 version, which is not that much larger. If you
>> can live with the slow speed, I can recommend the 3.5/135.

It is generally better than its reputation...

>I agree, these were excellent lenses and likely never became popular because
>the faster 105 f2.5 was just as good. Most photographers opted for the
>faster optic and the 105 became a classic while the 135 was never very
>popular with Nikon shooters. All the Nikkor 135's have been excellent, even
>the often maligned 135DC Nikkor which I own and appreciate a lot.
>
>Fred
>Photo Forums
>http://www.photoforums.net