In article <522g1s$kin@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, rfeldman@postoffice.worldnet.att.net says...

>I have recently shot photos with several different lenses with my N90s.
>After trying various Nikkor zooms, I bought the 35-70 2.8D, which is
>highly rated. I thought the photos I took with it were fine, but not
>great. When I compared them to ones I'd taken with my old 50 1.8, the
>zooms were noticeably less sharp, even in 4X6 prints. So I returned the
>zoom to CWO.
>
>I then tried several prime lenses (60 2.8, 85 1.8, and 105 2.8). All the
>shots were superb. I bought the 105 2.8 and just got my initial rolls
>back. Virtually all the shots were fabulous; some were among the best
>pictures I've ever taken.
>
>Zooms are undoubtedly more convenient. But if you're compulsive about
>image sharpness, I don't think they hold up to a Nikkor prime lense.
>
>Many of you will disagree.

No, but having used MANY Nikkor primes and zooms (and those of
other manufacturers), and having posted the earlier long list of
zoom disadvantages compared with primes, I will come back with
this - a few zooms (with some reservations!) are very hard to tell
from good primes in the quality of their images in normal use: the
Nikkor 35-105 MF (selected sample), 75-150mm E, and 80-200mm f2.8 AF.
Nearly as good are the Nikkor 25-50mm MF, 70-210 E, 80-200 f4 MF,
50-135mm, the Tamron SP 28-135mm, and maybe a few others. There
are many other zooms which can produce images that look good when
the lenses are used with an understanding of their particular
shortcomings (and the images would be hard to tell from those
made with good primes). But, in general, primes impose fewer
quality and use limitations on the photographer than do zooms.
Hope This Helps