In article <4lntc4$92t@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, cl156@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...

>Just as a matter of interest, did Nikon ever make a lens (Nikon F >series onwards) that was so poor that even cheap lenses were better?

Yes, the unthinkable has happened! ;-) See "SLE(MN)" at the following sites for more information:
-- Jan-jaap Aue: (nice text format)
http://www.phys.rug.nl/mk/people/aue/nikon/david.html
-- Quang-Tuan Luong: (nice text format)
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/35mm/
nikon-neuman.html
-- Niklas Nikitin: (nice table format)
http://www.cs.hks.se/~nicke/private/photo/lenstest/david.html
The quick answer is that the 43-86mm zoom is the pits in all its forms,
with a few (VERY few, relative to the large numbers of Nikkor lens
designs that have been offered) additional mediocre performers having
been produced.

>I know there is competition with say Canon and some designs of theirs
>may be better than Nikons,....[...]

You've GOT to be joshing! ;-) Occasionally almost as good, maybe, but
better!?!? Naw...... ;-) Different, though (Canon makes a few lenses
that Nikon doesn't, and visa-versa).

>I am also excluding a lens that is bad while others of the same type
>are good i.e. manufacturing errors on one or two samples.

Sample variation does occur, even in the best of lines, though the
variability is low for most Nikkors (there are notable exceptions,
mentioned in "SLE[MN]").
Hope This Helps