On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:03:51 -0400, "John N. Wall" wrote:

[...most of a generally good post deleted...}
>None of these self-proclaimed experts has tested large numbers of lenses
>in question thoroughly and carefully enough to come to such conclusions.
>Well, except maybe Newman-Reuther, but his conclusions about lenses
>sometimes differ from the opinion of other folks like Moose Peterson who
>have also published widely on Nikkor and other lenses and whose opinions
>have proved worthy of respect and notice.
[...]

Ah, since I choose to give away my extensive experience with Nikkor
lenses by offering the information free on my web page, rather than
by publishing "hard copy" that one must purchase, does that mean
my conclusions have not "proved worthy of respect and notice"...? ;-)
Sometimes there is excessive power in the word that is "in print",
I think. Does this mean that MP or others who offer their advice
on the printed page are more right than I am about particular lenses...? ;-)
BTW, I often check several samples of a lens (optical
performance of lenses does vary from sample to sample, and it can
even vary with the focus distance the lens is checked at...).
Also, sometimes preferences in lens performance is different with
different people - some people seem unaware of poor corner
performance so long as the center is sharp, for instance, but for
me, good corner performance defines good performance (how can a
lens be considered sharp at a particular focus distance and stop
if it is not acceptably sharp everywhere in the frame?). Other
lens characteristics may also be more important to other lens
checkers than they are to me - but that does not make my
conclusions wrong (or right...) relative to others who come to
different conclusions... And, BTW, the spelling is:
"Neuman-Ruether"....;-)