Hi--

>1. Thanks for always going thru the newsgroups and answering the
>various questions. I think I got a better grasp on the subject.
>Someother guy also referred me to the FAQ section on the newsgroup.

Thanks for the comments - it helps to know that things I write don't
just go into space and evaporate.....

>2. It seems that you are quite knowledgeable about Nikon stuff. So
>here's a question that I've been cookin' in my brain for the last 2
>months.

This won't help with your specific questions, but you may find it fun:

My "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)", version 5a,
which includes a listing of all Nikon SLR lenses ever made (with a
subjective evaluation of many of them, a general description of Nikkor
lens performance characteristics by lens-type groups, and comments on
particular lenses when the general descriptions plus the subjective
evaluation numbers are not sufficient to describe performance),
can be found at these sites:

-- Jan-jaap Aue: (nice text format)
http://www.phys.rug.nl/mk/people/aue/nikon/david.html
-- Quang-Tuan Luong: (nice text format)
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/35mm/
nikon-neuman.html
-- Niklas Nikitin: (nice table format)
http://www.cs.hks.se/~nicke/private/photo/lenstest/david.html
-- Bo-Ming Tong: (plain text format)
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bmtong/nikon/c.html
(Appendix C+, number 13 in table of contents)

>3. Predicament: I got the 24-50mm Nikon. I like this range.

(I didn't, when I had a 25-50mm f4, but each to his own ;-).

>4. Question: In terms of "quality" (pragmatic vs theoretical), would I
>be better off with a fixed focal length (ie 28mm) or if I really wanted
>to stay with the zoom, would the 20-35mm 2.8 be the way to go?

I have used neither the 20-35 or the 24-50, so my answers about relative
quality would be guesses based on other experience. I find that some tele
zooms can almost match prime lens quality (but not size, weight, and price).
Only a couple of shorter zooms are in that catagory: 50-135, SELECTED
35-105 AIS, and 25-50 (but all with considerable reservation relative
to primes). It is hard to build good WA primes, let alone good WA zooms,
so I doubt that the zooms are as good. The 28mm f2.8 >AIS< (only!) is an unusually good lens, and useable wide open. The 20mm f2.8 is also VERY
good from f5.6. Most 50's are really fine from f2.8 and good at f2.
This is hard to equal. (The 28mm f2.8 AF lenses are not some of Nikon's
better endeavors, so the zooms would almost certainly better them, which
is what the folks below may have been referring to.) If you have, and
like, the 24-50, I would keep it, and add the wonderful 20mm f2.8 (or
the unknown 18mm f2.8 AF, or excellent 18mm f3.5 AIS).

>5. Predicament #2: I've asked this question to numerous people, with
>varied responses. In Tokyo, this guy at this all Nikon store
>categorically stated that fixed focals wide angles were better than the
>wide angle zooms, except for the 20-35mm 2.8, which he stated was on par
>with the fixed focal lengths. He did admit the difference was very
>small; whether one could discern this with the naked eye was not
>discussed. Other salesmen in Tokyo voiced similar opinions. Back at
>home (Washington), I asked the local Nikon sales rep and he said that
>there was no difference in the 24-50mm zoom and the fixed focals. The
>tech rep guy at Nikon USA said the same thing, however did not provide
>any type of supporting documentation (those guys are very unhelpful!).
>I just read this article in Outdoor Photography (latest issue) in which
>a landscape photographer stated that if one were to use the extreme
>focal lengths of the zoom most of the time, that they would be better
>off getting a fixed focal length lens. What is the "truth"?

Probably the last. I found that, unless I am anchored to one spot, that I could "zoom with my feet" more quickly and easily than using a WA zoom.

>Thanks a bunch
Harry Minoru Shin

You're welcome!
David Ruether