Don F wrote:

"JohnR66" wrote in message
...

The Nikon lens is 3x the price. It had better be superior. I've not seen
image quality comparisons. From my experience, the Canon zoom has been
very good in image quality given the price.
John

----------
Lens quality is not (should not) be related to price. There are
measurement parameters that suggest the lens is of high quality and, if
photos taken under adverse lighting conditions prove the quality of the
lens, then it may be safe to assume the lens is good. I would guess that
*any* lens used at the optimum aperture under good lighting conditions will
provide good results.

The sign of very good glass is how it performs in the worst conditions,
not the best conditions. Alas, this typically goes with price. The
reason 50mm lenses are so high-q/price is due to their simplicity and
volume of sales.
d 100mm f/2.8.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.