In article <33B94802.4E09@erols.com>, omtech@erols.com says...
[snip...]
>Nikon has had a reputation since the late 50s since that was what most
>pros used. But if you were to check out the Japanese camera test
>magazines (which are like Consumer Reports, NO advertising), Nikon
>lenses are very good but really no better then anyone elses, and there
>are Olympus Zuikos (like the 100mm 2.8) that blows the doors off the
>Nikkor 105.

The above points up a problem with "tests"...
The Olympus 100mm f2.8 may be one VERY fine lens (I don't know,
never used it...), but the current-version Nikkor 105mm f2.5
IS one VERY fine lens, and therefore it is difficult for me to
imagine that the Olympus lens "blows the doors off the
Nikkor 105"... Unless the test favors one lens over another...
(The Nikkor is CRISP to the corners wide-open at focus distances
exceeding 6-8 feet or so. If the test were done near the lens
minimum-focus distance, at that distance the Olympus may well
"blow the doors off the Nikkor 105", so to speak, but at
other distances they may prove about equal, or [oh, heck, I
can't resist...;-] the Nikkor may well blow the doors off the
Olympus lens...) Lens testing is too fraught with flubbly-factors
to put too much stock in it. BTW, my experience with lens "checking"
would indicate that Nikkors as a group would hold a far higher
position in the lens-goodness heirarchy than indicated by the
original poster...;-)
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
BTW, there is a fairly comprehensive list of Nikkors
(and others) at the above site, with evaluations,
to be found under "I babble...".