Hi--

>Bob, can I get some suggestions from you?
>1. As you may remember, I recently got into the prime lens world
>(Contax). I currently have the 28mm and 35mm. I have taken some shots
>and I'm now ready to invest in the Contax line.

If you don't like most Contax bodies, and have not used the best Nikkor
primes on your Nikon, I would consider going that way - Nikkors may be
cheaper, far easier to find used, may retain resale value better, and
are VERY good lenses (if you avoid the ever-widening range of so-so
AF Nikkors appearing).

>2. Question: Should I get the 25mm 2.8 or the 21mm 2.8? I'm not sure
>if the 25mm would be "redundant" since I have the 28mm. But then, I'm
>wondering if I should sell the 28mm and just get the 25mm (which a lot
>of folk seem to do). I originally got the 28mm because I'm very used to
>that focal length and to me, it's my "normal" lens (more so than the
>35mm). If I get the 21mm, that would provide a 7mm difference between
>the 3 focal lengths (21--28--35). However, I'm wondering if 21mm would
>be too wide (I've used a 20mm once in my life).

I love the 20mm Nikkor (and a 15mm isn't too wide for me - neither is the
16mm fisheye). The 25mm Zeiss is a VERY old design - from the 60's, I
think. The 21 and 28 are much more recent. From what I gather from
photos seen of Zeiss wides, they have good center performance, but often
not great edges/corners (I consider uniformity of performance across the
whole image area important - a lens that is not sharp somewhere in the frame at a given aperture is not sharp at that aperture), but I have
not tried them myself to see. I would consider a 21-35-50-85 sequence
(28 and 35 are uselessly close), or 18-28-50-100, or 18-35-85, or some
such. 25-28 are almost identical, as are 28-35, 21-25, 18-21 - and 35-50
is almost too close, but the proportional difference makes a useful
sequence if zooms are not going to be used. My most useful sequence
is 20-35-85, 80-200.

>3. The way I'm thinking right now, since I have the 28mm (which is
>supposed to be slightly slightly better than the 25mm) and since the
>25mm would not be a major change from the 28mm, I'm apt to get the 21mm,
>which would definitely be "different" from my 28mm, thus providing a
>reason to get it.
>4. Any advice you can give me d/t your experiences with various wide
>angle focal lengths. By the way, I mainly shoot outdoor landscape type
>stuff. Thanks.
> Harry Minoru Shin

Landscape photography requires even lens performance to the corners,
but small apertures are OK - I would buy only if I could return it, and
check edge/corner performance on the negative or slide with at least a
decent cheap 10X magnifier - the results may surprise you (or me ;-).
David Ruether