Hi--

>all the other Nikkor
>85s (except for contrast with the f1.4 MF at wide stops) are so great,
it
>pales slightly by comparison - but it is still an excellent lens under
>most shooting conditions. Oddly, other lenses that share the 85's
>characteristics (the 105 f2.5, 135 f2.8, 135 f2) are not similarly
>down-rated. I think my ratings are more realistic...;-)

And yet there is a widespread perception this lens is a dog. I once
conversed with a Nikon, USA technical guy who assumed the 85 f2 was
inferior
to the 105 f2.5 for years until finally getting around to testing it and
discovered the performance was about the same. Reports of one or
another
lens performing especially well or poorly usually have a basis as
determined
by many reports of competent photographers. Of course there is
confusion,
wishful thinking, or other special conditions that can influence a
reputation
temporarily, but over time these things shake out I don't know of many
that
do not deserve their reputation, at least eventually. That's why I was
mystified by photographers beating up on the 85 f2.

Yes. Other than what I wrote above, I have no explanation...
Another mystery many report the 28mm f2.8 E as good, yet most
I've seen have been terrible... Here, again, it may be that
most do not realize that some lens' performance can vary
considerably with distance, and they test at unrealistic distances
(the compact 20mm f3.5 I have is a "zinger" under 10' even
wide open, but is terrible near infinity-focus, even well
stopped-down...).