> 2. optically how does it compare to zooms of today It actually stands up quite well. Else, why would Frances Schultz still be raving about it in Shutterbug in 1998, almost 25 years after its introduction. Schultz said: "Even by modern standards it is fast; it is still remarkably sharp; [...] It was introduced in the mid-1970s, over 20 years ago; [...] Very few zooms of that period were any good, but the performance of this one is impressive, even by the standards of the late 1990s. [...] It is fast and easy to use and delivers excellent results at all focal lengths." A synopsis (only) of this review is available online ( http://www.shutterbug.net/archives/story.cfm?StoryID=377 ), but I did post the entire contents of the review previously here on the PDML (check the archives, or I could send a copy by email).
Schultz and Roger Hicks also specifically (and positively) mention this lens in their 1994 book, "The Lens Book", which is the one book recommended by Robert Monaghan on his famous "Cult Classic Megasite" ( http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/cult.html ). However, don't forget that part of the attraction of "cult classic" lenses sometimes derives from such things as their historical significance, their uniqueness of design, their rarity, etc., and these factors don't necessarily result in better images on film - <g>. Furthermore, there is a cost factor often involved, where some "cult classics" often performed close to (and not always necessarily better than) their much more expensive name-branded counterparts. Fred
