On 21 Oct 1998 11:54:30 PDT, skeiser@concentric.net wrote:

>Over the past several weeks I've read all of the lens reviews, Canon vs.
>Nikon arguments etc., that I have been able to get my hands on. I believe
>I've settled upon the Nikon system as best for my needs. (I now have a
>Minolta XE-7, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 135mm f4.5 and want to go to autofocus
>ability as I'm now having a hard time getting accurate focusing--I also
>miss a lot of pictures of my toddler daughter while changing lenses, so
>desire zoom capability).

Hmmm, if that is a Minolta 135mm *f3.5*, it is likely you already have
a fine set of lenses... (you can better them in the Nikon line by
careful selection of versions [see my Nikkor evaluation list on my
web page, under "I babble"], but you may not see the difference...).
Accurate manual focus (with older cameras, with sharper finders
than most newer ones, BTW...) is often a problem due to aging, and
less ability to refocus the eye. You may find a solution in this
with fitting a diopter on the camera eyepiece to adjust focus with
your eyes to about 3-3.5'. Another solution, which I found useful
for just plain sharp seeing as well as easy camera manual focus, is
described on my web page under "I babble", "On Four-Way Glasses"...
As for zooms, I find them slower to use than non-zooms, since one more
decision needs to be made before shooting - I find feet much faster
than zooming, when close-in. Also, non-zooms are generally MUCH
better at considerably wider stops than zooms, making both manual
focus and hand-held shooting easier (a tripod isn't too practical
with kids, and flash is kinda ugly, unless done well...). And,
one will always miss "great pictures", no matter what...;-)

>I understand that penalties are paid for zoom capability. What's hard for
>me to understand is whether I would detect the penalties in the kind of
>photography I do. I shoot mostly 4x6 prints in P&S situations, like of my
>daughter.

OK here...

>I shoot mostly slides of nature and scenic and "creative"
>photography. While I don't really blow up a lot of my work, I want lenses
>sharp enough to do so.

Probably not OK here, unless small-stops/tripod are used...

>What I would appreciate some advice about is lens selections. I'm
>considering the following scenarios:
>
>1) 24-120mm AF D, 70-300mm AF ED, 50mm f1.8
>
>2) 35-70mm f2.8 AF D, 70-300mm AF ED, 28mm f2.8
>
>3) 35-70 f3.3-? AF D, 70-300mm AF ED, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8
>
>The reason I thought these would be the best situations for me are the
>following: [rest deleted...]

You can consult my Nikkor evaluation list for my subjective
evaluations of the above (except the 70-300 [which I'm not
fond of, but which may be fine for your purposes]), including
a review of the surprisingly good 24-120. There are some
fine Nikkor zooms, but I prefer mostly non-zooms (why trade
fast/sharp/light/small/easily-focused/cheaper non-zooms for
clunky/slow/sharp-only-stopped-down/heavy/big/expensive/
hard-to-focus zooms, for their dubious "convenience"? ;-)
You save making the occasional lens change, but at a very
considerable price... Zooms are not easier to use, unless
you go to full auto mode, and then why not just get a good
point-and-shoot instead?
If you do switch to Nikon (there are a LOT of first-rate
lenses [new and used] to choose from, and some of the bodies
have particularly excellent viewfinders and TTL flash systems),
I would choose the 28mm f2.8 *AIS*, 50mm f1.8 (any version),
and 105mm f2.5 (change that to f2.8, if you want macro
capability...). A simpler system: 35mm f2 and any 85mm Nikkor
(maybe add the really excellent 20mm f2.8 and 180mm f2.8 for
a really fine set of lenses...).