[ANNIES]

few weeks ago you have a test for this lense

to day its not in your list

why ?

mistake ?

[mst]

It sometimes happens that reviews are removed when there is serious doubt that the reviewed sample was not within specs.



However, I don't see this here, I don't remember a review of this lens, nor do I find traces of such a review in our CMS.



-- Markus

[ANNIES]

Yes I have see this test, some months ago.

And I bought this lens after.

But I've not printed

I would be interested to the printed

In French Forum CHASSEUR D’IMAGE it is cited : you very well noted that lenses manufacturer in 1998, 2006.



In a page of your site it is compared







Nikkor AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D

(***-) good

(***+) good

(***-) very good

(****-) significant

(***) little distortions

(****) significant (w/o)

(***) little vignetting (w/o)

(****) neutral some flare

(***-) good

(3.44) slow

(**-) good

(***) 142

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='ANNIES' timestamp='1286013254' post='3446']

Yes I have see this test, some months ago.

And I bought this lens after.

But I've not printed

I would be interested to the printed

In French Forum CHASSEUR D’IMAGE it is cited : you very well noted that lenses manufacturer in 1998, 2006.



In a page of your site it is compared





[/quote]

I do not remember seeing this particular lens tested on photozone, ANNIES. I think you must have seen it tested somewhere else.

[exuvia]

[quote name='ANNIES' timestamp='1286013254' post='3446']

Yes I have see this test, some months ago.

And I bought this lens after.

But I've not printed

I would be interested to the printed

In French Forum CHASSEUR D’IMAGE it is cited : you very well noted that lenses manufacturer in 1998, 2006.



In a page of your site it is compared

[/quote]



Those data you pasted are about the Lens This is most likely spam content, a subjective evaluation made by the users. That is not a Photozone Test at all.