Umm..... I have personally checked out a large percentage of the
named Nikkor lenses (often multiple samples), and would need to
disagree with the magazine's evaluation of at least 1/3 of them.
In general, Nikkors have the following characteristics:
- Lenses 50mm and below, and most zooms: Excellent performance
across the frame just shy of the VERY FAR corners by 5.6, the far
corners (the part that just about slips under a slide mount)
improving with stoping down. Exceptions: 16mm 3.5 and late 35PC
which are wonderful wide open; 28 2.8 AIS, 35 2, 35 1.4 which
are quite good wide open; 28 2 which can be very good by 2.8;
all 50 1.8's and late 50 1.4 which are quite good by F2.
- Lenses 55mm and longer, including most zooms in this range:
very good performance to corners wide open, improving some with
stopping down. Some of the non-floating-element and non- IF teles
and some zooms suffer degradation in performance near minimum focus
at wide apertures (this may explain magazine's odd ratings for,
say, 85 F2, though not the equally superb 85 F1.4, which with a
floating element, performs well wide open not only near
infinity, but all the way to closest focus).
Nikon has made VERY FEW poor lenses, and I will name them:
All 20's before the 2.8's; all versions of the 43-86, the
18 F4, the early 28 F3.5; the 28E and AF; perhaps the 55 F1.2.
There are also "unfavorites": 70-210 F4-5.6AF, 28 F3.5 PC,
(35-105MF is extremely variable - from terrible to wonderful),
35-200. This is a very short list compared with the total
number of Nikkors I have tried. The rest are first-rate.
The "off-brand" lenses that are comparable make a short list:
8mm Sigma, 28-135mm Tamron SP, 90mm Sigma and Series I macros,
100mm Ser. I macro, early (good sample) Ser. I 70-210, and
100-500mm Cosina. Most of the rest, including some highly
touted ones (like Sigma 400 APO) have ranged from mediocre
to terrible in my experience.
Hope this helps.