On 27 Nov 1998 07:20:17 GMT, tsai@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Finnegan T. Tsai) wrote:
>In article <36671030.7880595@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Neuman-Ruether wrote:

>>It would sure bug me!!! ;-)
>>But mine (beyond 6-7' or so) is quite sharp
>>to the corners wide open... You either
>>checked it near minimum focus (where at 200mm
>>wide open it is far less than stellar...), or
>>you have one of the occasional "lemons", alas...
>>Lenses do vary from sample to sample, unfortunately...

>Oh yes, I was talking about 200mm wide open, close range,
>side by side comparison with the Minolta version.
>Originally I thought it was only me... after I read
>your post, I realised this might be the Nikkor's weak
>spot.

Yes - that is the compromise in an otherwise
wonderful lens... BTW, several of Nikon's short
tele non-zooms also aren't wonderful near minimum
focus distance wide-open, yet have well-deserved
good reputations (the 105mm f2.5, etc...). This is
one reason I don't favor "chart-testing" of lenses.

>BTW, David, I am very impressed by your lens ranking.
>It is very consistent with my personal experiences,
>better than most magazine test results. Good job!

Thanks for the comments!
(For those interested in trudging through it, the
Nikkor list is on my web page, under "I babble"...)