In article <41q4ks$cn4@news.bu.edu>, mhuang@bu.edu says...
>: From a previous post:
>:
d_ruether@hotmail.com says...
>: I am mystified by something I have often seen: a lot of money spent
>: on a top Nikon body, like an N90 or F4, and (relatively) little
>: spent on marginal (relatively) cheapo glass. The glass determines
>: the image quality that is placed on the film (merely) held by the
>: camera body.
>the problem which the previous poster emphasized was the weight.
>granted Nikon lenses are very well constructed. but a Nikkor 80-200/f4
>weights at 29 oz and a 75-300/4.5-5.6AF 30 oz; while a sigma
>75-300/4-5.6APO is only 16 oz. actually i find the sigma at near 300mm >is intolerablly ( to me ) soft even at f8. so maybe the sigma is not >quite worth it after all. are the nikon E series much lighter than the >normal nikkors? anyone knows how much Nikon 80-200/4.5AI weights?

You make a good point about weight for a specialized use, and reinforce mine about the worthlessness of third-rate lenses, no matter how
cheap or light. The 80-200mm f4.5 and the 70-210E are not significantly lighter than the 80-200mm f4 Nikkor, but the 200mm f4 AI-AIS is very
compact and light, and very good. The E 100 and 135mm f2.8's are VERY
light and compact - and cheap, sharp, and fast to boot! The 75-150mm
f3.5 E (constant aperture) is excellent - and is small, light, and inexpensive - and works well on a TC1.4A (about 3/4" long) converter
(and reasonably well on the TC200 2x).
Hope this helps.