In article <4bfjip$omj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jeffm9@aol.com says...
>This gets to a question I've not been able to answer. How come there
>aren't any lenses that are of the same optical quality as the fast(2.8)
>zooms from Nikon and Canon, but simply a stop or two slower, for those
>who would trade the weight for the extra stops? How come it always
>seems to be the case that once you don't insist on the
>photojournalist's 2.8 capabilitities, the overall optics on the zoom
>immediately plunge into amateur territory? Isn't there a market for
>very high quality 80-2-- or better yet 75-300 zooms, which aren't
>necessarily any faster than 4.5 or even 5.6 at the far end, but which
>have the same performace at the stops it does offer as say the best of
>the fast lenses?

Yes, but they are called "Nikkors" :-) The 100-300mm f5.6 MF and
75-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF are both excellent (sharp to the corners wide
open, low in distortion, contrasty, and all those other good things
throughout their zoom and focus ranges (with no compromises at the
long end). The optical performance of Nikkor lenses in the middle
of the line (and even toward the bottom end) is generally very
close to that at the top end of the line: VERY NICE!
Hope this helps.