In article <4fbb4k$2u3@nntpb.cb.att.com>, rma@clockwise.mh.att.com says...

>In article <4fahdp$93o@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Bob Neuman wrote:
>>Read Bob Atkin's post (and your own), to which I would add
>>that, in my opinion, if you are going to purchase a wide
>>range of lenses at all price levels, Nikkor lenses have a
>>higher overall optical quality standard, particularly in
>>the bottom and middle price ranges, than in the Canon
>>lens line where there appears to be more variation in
>>quality. You may find the following interesting:
(Reference to locations of web sites where a complete listing of
Nikkor lenses [with evaluations of many] can be found was deleted.)
>I'm not sure that's true. What you get with Nikon is the ability to use
>the old, manual focus, fully metal lenses. You don't get that option
>with Canon. So if you include *all* possible lenses, maybe you are
>correct. If we stick with the latest AF lenses, I'm not at all convinced
>that the Nikon lens line is superior - nor is it inferior! Everything
>depends on exactly which lenses you are intested in. For example,
>Canon offer 5 different 75/100-300 zoom lenses to pick from, ranging
>from $200 to $620. Nikon offer one at $560, so you might well say
>that the average Canon lens in this catagory isn't as good as the
>average Nikon. Maybe, but the statistics are a bit deceptive!
>Canon also offer 8 lenses under $200, while Nikon offers only 2
>(from latest B&H Photo ad). If you factor in all these "low end"
>lenses you may unfairly bias against Canon for offering low cost
>options. These low end lenses may well bring down the "average"
>quality of the lens line, but they give you an option Nikon don't
>offer. If you pick similar lenses from Nikon and Canon (in specs
>and price) I doubt you can say either is clearly better than the
>other in most cases.

My information may be outdated, and my opinions were based on what I
have observed in Canon MF gear owned by local photographers. I have
seen photos indicating (rather obviously) several soft 20mm f2.8 Canons
(the owner had to try 4 to get a good one, as I recall), a very soft
17mm Canon (supplied by Canon to the college paper - great advertising!),
a 28mm f2 that clearly suffered from field curvature problems, a 7.5mm
that was, charitably, not sharp near the edge of coverage (these were not cheap lenses) - and also photos showing sharp images from several other
Canon lenses. In addition, one often reads posts in these groups noting
the less than stellar performance of many of the newer Canon AF lenses.
My point has been, and continues to be, that in a huge line of lenses
(most of which can be used on current Nikon bodies), there have been VERY
few poor-performering Nikkors, either due to poor design, or to
manufacturing variations (and I have personally tried hundreds of Nikkors
[!], so this is based on considerable experience). Even when you go to the bottom of the Nikkor line, photos taken with the cheapest Nikkors are hard
to distinguish from those taken with the most expensive. I do not believe
that is true in the Canon line -- or is it? And, to put the Nikon-Canon comparison another way, is a low-cost (or medium priced) lens that is not sharp worth having? Is it worth it to need to pick and chose in a lens line
to get good optics, hoping that the particular focal length and speed lens
you want to use is, a) a good design, and, b) consistently well-manufactured
so that the lens you purchase is likely to be sharp? With the Nikkor lens line, this is relatively a non-issue - almost all Nikkors are good lenses, regardless of price and time of design and manufacture.
Hope This Helps