ssingh@informix.com wrote in message <6f9gni$tqv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> If the prime is any sharper than the zoom, I plan to replace the
>zoom with the prime. I am not worried about the 85mm range now - that
>is covered. I am trying to work my way towards the sharpest possible lens
>system for landscape shots. I already have 20mm, 24mm, 25-50 f/4, 35-70 f/2.8
>and 55mm micro lenses. While all of these are very sharp lenses, if I am
>blowing up images to 16X20 size, and if I plan to stick with 35mm system
>for a while, even a minute difference in sharpness between any two lenses
>will show up. This is why I am considering the 35mm prime. If I get that,
>I would get rid of the 25-50 f/4 and 35-70 f/2.8 zooms, leaving me with
>the 20mm, 24mm, 35mm and 55mm fixed focal lenses which, although a lot
>more inconvenient, will make me happier if the 35mm prime is indeed sharper
>than the 35-70 f/2.8 zoom.


You may find my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)" amusing...;-)
(under "I babble" on my web page). I tend to favor the AIS (MF) 35mm f2 for
speed-lens use, and the latest-version 35mm f2.8 PC Nikkor for when I just
plain want the best image quality anywhere in the frame, at any stop short
of f22, for mid-to-long distance shooting... BTW, the 25-50 was quite good
at 35mm stopped down slightly, as is the 35-70 f2.8 - the differences appear
at the widest stops, and in the corners. Stopped down to f11 or so, you
would be hard-put to see the difference in any of the Nikkors mentioned that
include the 35mm FL (heck, I would even include the 24-120 in this!). If
you want to go all non-zooms for landscapes, I would suggest the 20mm f2.8,
28mm f*4* PC (a little hard to find), and the 55 (+ maybe any of the Nikkor
85mm lenses and the 16mm f*3.5* fisheye [about the best wide-angle lens
I have ever seen, and excellent for some landscape work if you get the
hang of using it...;-]).
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com