Hi--

>Thank you for responding to my internet inquiry as well as to my email a week
>or two ago. I have spent more time perusing your website in recent days and
>am astounded by the volume and detail of your research and the cogency of its
>presentation. It has been a major influence on my own thinking as I wrestle
>with my own lens conundrum.

Thanks for the comments.

>The "pre D" AF 35-105 Nikkor that I recently bought secondhand from a dealer
>in San Francisco (with the option to trade in on the D versio if I choose to)
>is definitely a tad better than the 35-135 Nikkor I had before it. It is not
>unreasonable to assume therefore that under your rating system it is at least
>a 4.1, given that the 35-135 was rated 3.6 to 4.0. If it is in fact one of
>the superb 4.6 specimens I would indeed be well advised to keep it, as you
>suggest. The problem is, how does a layman like me, lacking specialized
>testing facilites or expertise, know how his particular lens stacks up in the
>heirarchy of samples? My own judgments as to lens quality are completely
>subjective. You characterize your own as subjective too, but your judgments
>are based on a wealth of comparative data from dozens of other lenses that
>obviously someone like me could never begin to match.

The best samples of the 35-105 are sharp to the corners by f5.6 (good to
the corners by wide-open, actually...) at a wide range of mid distances (in
macro, the corners don't hold up shorter than about 50mm, and at infinity
the corners don't hold up longer than about 85mm - but this is better
performance than almost any other zoom, and better than many non-zooms).
It is a good idea to check (at f5.6) lens alignment - you can do it by
taking a vertical photo (camera take-up spool end up) of a distant
subject (like a detailed horizon line) running across the top edge of the
frame, then invert the camera and take the identical photo without
changing anything (especially focus...), then check the same detail
features across the film frameline to see if they are equally sharp/unsharp.
Do this at 3-5 different FL's with a zoom... Check film directly with a
decent 8-10X magnifier (cheap folding biological field magnifiers, or
"linen" magnifiers work well).

>A quick solution to my quandry immediately suggests itself. Maybe I'll
>splurge on the new 24-120. Based on your review, it's better than all but the
>top specimens of either version of the 35-105!!

It is good, but large, and maybe not enough better to worry about...

>Thanks.
>Richard L. Shaw
>Arlington, Virginia
RShaw71214@aol.com

You're welcome!

>Also, since I am also in the process of buying a new camera body, getting the
>D version has implications for matrix metering and fill-in flash. I would
>never settle for inferior optics because of these features, but if my better
>than average pre-D and a predictable D lens (4.2 on your scale) [....lost...]

The "D" feature is probably too subtle to worry about, unless you
shoot white wedding dresses a lot...;-)