In article <4c4bfi$64t@leol.net-link.net>, corky@serv01.net-link.net says...
>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) wrote:
>>The Nikkor 20mm f2.8 is a tad better than the excellent 24mm f2.8
>>Nikkor, so, if you have the money and like 20mm, buy it.
>>Check out SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors) at:
>> http://www.phys.rug.nl/mk/people/aue/nikon/david.html
>I'm a photojournalist and the staffer who is charge of new equipment
>and repairs. The 20mm f2.8 is a great lens. A little bit wider and it
>doesn't keystone as bad as the earlier 20mm f2.8 (manual focus). Great
>lens, worth the extra money.
>We have had only one problem with them. We have 7 of them all bought
>about 5 years ago. 5 of the 7 have been sent into Nikon for repair
>because they weren't sharp on the edges. They were fixed for about
>$120 each and are fine now.
>Since we photojournalist, in general, are hard on gear you may never
>have this problem.-Wayne Anderson

What do you DO with this stuff? Use it for chocks to keep the parked trucks from rolling on hills?! BTW, the 20mm f2.8 Nikkors have never
been changed optically, whether MF or AF, and keystoning is an aspect
of focal-length and perspective type, not much related to lens design
(unless a large amount of barrel distortion shifts the perspective
type from rectangular to fisheye). I have used several Nikkor 20mm f2.8's, and they were uniformly good corner-to-corner by f5.6. Your
luck with the 20's (and 300's before) has been poor! Maybe the MF
lenses would prove more durable? (Or make the photographers more
responsible for at least a modicum of care for their equipment -
beaten equipment of any sort, photographic or not, isn't going to
serve well for long.)
Hope this helps.