In article <4qcegc$7e5@columbia.cs.ubc.ca>, gates@cs.ubc.ca says...

>I'm thinking of buying:
> Nikon N90S (F90X), MB-10, SB-26,
> 80-200/2.8D, 24/2.8D, 35/2.8D, 50/1.8
>I'd love any comments on my proposed setup.
>As finances permit, I plan to add a 105/2.8 Micro
>and another camera body (either another N90S or F3HP).
>My main concerns are (1) no tripod collar for
>the 80-200/2.8 (anyone get away with a Really
>Right Stuff plate and a good ballhead?)
>and (2) lack of mirror-lock with the N90S
>(has anyone tested the N90S vs. F3/F4/etc with
>mirror locked?). Thanks for your help.

Remember in evaluating the following that I don't
use AF or AE, and quality is my first concern:
Unless you photograph only people, optimum samples
of the 20mm f2.8 and MF 35mm f2 and f1.4 are a bit
better than two of the lenses listed above (one of
which was the 35mm f2 AF?), though the AF 24 and 35
are good lenses (but Nikon didn't appear to try very
hard with the 35, though....). The 105mm AF is very
good for close work, but the focus rate is too fast
for MF distant work (and apparently for good optical
alignment, also [2 of 3 I tried had film-plane mis-
alignment that showed with infinity subjects] - the
MF version is a really fine general-purpose short
tele, though its macro capabilities are slightly
inferior to those of the AF version). The F3 is
preferable for precision work (more accurate finder,
with no linear distortion, mirror lock, and a meter
that works with PC lenses), but for fast shooting
and for flash, the N90 is preferable. The RRS camera
plate used with an Arca ball head works with the
80-200mm f2.8, though it trades sturdiness/steadyness
(I often use a steadying hand on the lens for 1/8 -
1/30th second exposures...) for convenience/compactness.
The 80-200mm is fairly easy to hand-hold at speeds down
to about 1/60th at 200mm (with frequent rests), so a
tripod is less necessary when using this lens at
1/60 - 1/125th than it would be with a lighter/shorter
similar-range zoom.
Hope This Helps