On 29 Aug 1998 04:07:50 PDT, tim@marks.cncfamily.com (Tim Marks) wrote:
>In article <35ea3321.34448446@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>d_ruether@hotmail.com says...

[....]
>> I tried three of the 70-300 (I really wanted this lens...! ;-),
>> and the results were far from fine (I do like good corner and
>> edge performance...) with the ones I tried. Not terrible, but
>> definitely second-rate for Nikon (like the 70-210 f4-5.6)...
[....]

>Are you saying here that the 70-210 f4-5.6 is a bad, mediocre or good
>lens? I have been thinking of getting one to replace my very mediocre
>Quantaray 70-210. I of course would love to have the 80-200 f2.8 but it
>is much to expensive and way too heavy for casual use. Thanks for any
>comments.

The 70-210 f4-5.6 AF was the first Nikkor tele of any sort that seemed
to be "under-designed" for a lower-priced market... It was not up to
my expectations for a Nikkor tele, since it had less than wonderful
edge/corner sharpness under some commonly used conditions...
There have been so-so Nikkors in the past, but these mostly existed
due to overwhelming technical problems at the time of issue - and
these have been replaced with better later versions. But the 70-210
and 70-300 appear to be inferior optically to the lenses they
replaced (not a good direction for Nikon to go, I think...).
If you can live without AF (and I see AF as not especially useful,
and as an opportunity taken by manufacturers to offer a generally
unneeded feature and cheaper construction in trade for good feel
and appearance...), the 70-210mm f4 E and 80-200mm f4 MF are
optically better alternatives. If AF is important, look for the
early AF version of the 70-210 E lens (or the 75-300...).