In article <33283845.2135@dontspamme.org>, dg@dontspamme.org says...
>Bob Neuman wrote:
>> in response to:

>> >It is 2/3"s and can make a difference in dim light or old eyes like mine.
>> >It's kinda a rule of thumb with Nikkor and Canon that the fastest lens are
>> >the best performers!

>> Hmmm, that may be true for Canon, but rarely for Nikon - the fastest
>> version and the one-stop-slower-than-fastest version tend to perform
>> pretty much at the same level of quality (though sometimes the
>> particular characteristics make them "equal-but-different" in how they
>> perform). I have of late been drifting back toward those lighter and
>> smaller gems (and often the slower lens is easier to focus, since
>> screens are being optimised more for slower zooms these days...).
>> Hope This Helps

>i second this observation. perhaps the very new breed of super
>cheap zooms might show some obvious drawbacks, but in general,
>given the insurmountable frailties of a zoom design to begin with,
>there's not much point in going with super fast apertures and
>dealing with the bulk and weight they entail...conversely, if one
>can endure the bulk and weight, a bevy of primes seems a better
>choice for all but those who need to compose and shoot very
>quickly while handholding with slower film.

Hmmm (I tend to forget words that I mean to include...), I was refering
to Nikkor primes (but I forgot to say that, alas...). Nikon's fast zooms
are sometimes better than their slower counterparts, though for general
(non-commercial) use, the size and weight can be oppressive and I choose
not to carry them for fun work, just for work I get paid for...;-)
I didn't make it clear in my post, but my preference now is for the
one-stop-slower-than-the-fastest *primes* - they are sharp, light, compact,
cheaper (though I have sets of both these and the speed primes, plus
the zooms...;-), and much more pleasant to use - and, surprisingly, I
find f2 lenses are generally easier to focus than f1.4 lenses...
(it probably has to do with the VF screen optimization characteristics).
I find that for most purposes, it is easier to deal with 4 or 5 compact
primes than a couple of monster zooms (and I find that shooting is faster
with the primes *unless* I cannot shift my viewpoint quickly and easily,
and the action being photographed is moving [not common in my work]).
BTW, if I were starting out again (or selling down to a minimum good
outfit), I would choose these Nikkors (almost all MF, of course!! :-):
20mm f2.8, 28mm f4PC, 35mm f2, 85mm f2, 180mm f2.8 AF - I could do
95% of what I can do now, with this set of lenses (plus one F3 and a
pair of 8008 bodies [all with grid screens] with a pair of SB-24's
[plus a couple of achromats, a TC14A, a TTL flash remote cord, a cable
release, and a decent tripod] completes the basic outfit).
Hmmm, maybe I should have a big sale of lots of carefully selected/checked
Nikon gear..... (could raise enough money for that two-camcorder + computer
editing digital-video system I've been kinda hankerin' after...;-).
And, BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify what
I had not made clear...;-)
Hope This Helps