On Mar 17, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
If you wrote a review of the lens you might be able to remember
some of the
highlights of the review. Reconstructing might not be a very
scientific
method, but could give some hints.
If it's a lot of trouble doing it, then forget it. It's not that
important
to me. I'm asking mainly out of general curiosity.
I summarized in my earlier post.
As good as the first generation 300/2.8 Nikkor with low-dispersion
glass, but not as good as the current ones. Translation: better
than Sigma, maybe better than Tamron and Tokina.
Bob
