Hi--

>Hello David. I'm on my second new sample of the 2-ring 80-200/2.8.
>Altho the 2d is improved, both exhibit a consistent lateral shift of the
>image in the VF (on F3HP & F90X) when moderately quickly or quickly
>changing the direction of focus, most prominent racked out to 200mm (and
>even more so w/TC14C).

The TC would multiply effects like these...

>The shift is small enuf as to not be noticeable
>hand-held (at least not for me ;-) ), but is apparent w/tripod. The
>shift amount is about 1/2 length of the top/bottom of one AF bracket
>-- the tiny part running horizontal w/the camera body in horizontal
>position -- and occurs w/the camera body in the same position, but does
>not appear to be present when the camera body is in the vertical
>position
>
>So ... this is my first ever zoom -- but donta seem right...

Donta seem rite t' mee either...
(I hate AF lenses...)
The earliest version doesn't seem to have this effect, but since the
optics are the same, and the zoom action is also (except for the control),
it is hard to know why this would happen (obviously the glass is not
staying centered...). This would annoy me, as it does with MF lenses with well-worn helicals. (With AF, you get new lenses that are looser than old
well-worn MF lenses..., YUCK! ;-)

>Also -- is it possible to have variations in VF eye relief/eye point
>w/different bodies of the _same_ model?

Unlikely...

>Like you, I am an eyeglass
>wearer -- fell in love with the 25mm eyept of the F3HP upon first use.
>But I am get either 2 corner vignetting or VF border 'ghosting' w/my
>F90X, even w/best eye position (using the 80-200/2.8). A couple of
>other F90X samples do not seem to be as bad as mine, however I didn't
>standardize the lens (if that would make a difference?).

No - sometimes the viewing screen mask is not well placed (it can even
have rotation - I check for VF mask alignment when buying a body, new
or old...).

>I think the
>F90/N90 specs w/a 19mm eyept - but it seems like I've viewed other Nikon
>bodies w/18 or 19mm of eye relief w/better results.

Quite likely...

>Any comments on the above befuddlements?

Yuh - WHY did Nikon et al take the opportunity when AF came along
to cheapen their construction???!!! (The answer is obvious, and will
hurt Nikon's reputation in the end, but it makes bucks in the short
run... [I will be keeping a nice set of nice MF Nikkors for a
while...;-]). AF is a bad joke on the consumer, I think (well, maybe
it works with the F5, but I refuse to deal with those icky AF lenses
[except the early 80-200...]). BTW, I also find the N90 viewing
screen difficult to use for MF (I suspect Nikon optimized it for
slow zooms - though one *could* say instead that they just followed
Minolta's lead in making VF's so bad that people think they actually
need AF...;-).

>Any luck w/wrangling up and testing a 500/4 P?
> "jim clark"

No, looks like it won't happen...