On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:15:18 -0500, "Mac Breck" wrote:
>Why not refer him to the 35-70 f/2.8 AF Nikkor?

>Neuman-Ruether wrote in message
><367b2afc.21227579@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>>If you must get a zoom (non-zooms are sharper/faster/lighter/smaller/
>>often-cheaper/easier-to-use, so why bother with the zoom except for
>>point-'n'-shoot purposes, and then why bother with an SLR...? ;-),
>>the 35-105 is the best of the above, but better yet is the 24-120...
>>BTW, you may find my Nikkor evaluation list interesting (on my web
>>page, under "I babble"...).

'Cuz he hadn't put it on his list, but the 24-120 seemed
to be in the price range and a better lens than any suggested?
'Cuz the 35-70 is hardly a zoom, at only 2X range, and a
functionally-similar 50mm f1.8 FL would be sharper/faster/
lighter/smaller/cheaper/easier-to-use than the 35-70?
Dunno.....(?) ;-)