On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:00:10 GMT, "Kevin Neilson" wrote:

>I'm trying to figure out which (manual focus) lenses I need for a complete
>set. I'm trying to avoid zooms, because of the lower quality. I now have:
>28mm f2.8
>50mm f1.8
>105mm f2.5
>
>and would probably like to get
>200mm f4 (would actually like f2.8, but you know how that is)
>and maybe a 16mm fisheye if I can afford it
>
>Does this leave any major gaps? I'm just confused about some of the overlap
>in the offerings. For example, if you have a 105mm, you don't need an 85mm
>or a 135mm, do you? Or why is there both a 24mm and 28mm, as well as both a
>180mm and 200mm? Is the difference that stark?
>-Kevin

Well, jumping back in at your original post (and having
tried to "sequence" lenses several times, and having given
up and just bought them all...;-), given what you started
with, here is a possible sequence:

16mm f3.5 (better than the f2.8 versions)
28mm f2.8 (the best: AIS version, which you have)
50mm f1.8 (all are good in good samples, with some
possibly important differences)
105mm f2.5 (I prefer the late version, or the Micro)
200mm f4 MF Micro-Nikkor (supplies the missing
macro capability, with good short tele performance)
TC14A (works well with all of the above lenses,
providing in-between FLs [including a nice
"20mm-equivalent" when used with the 16mm, and
a longish 280mm with the 200mm])

Possible additions:
500mm f8 (older version - a remarkably good
long-but-compact tele)
35mm f2.8 PC (latest version)
20mm f2.8 (noticeably wider than the 28mm, but
not as wide as the 16, and excellent)

Possible substitutions:
180mm f2.8 AF + extension tubes for the 200mm f4 M
(faster, excellent, and can still serve as a
moderate-magnification macro lens).
28mm f4 PC for the 28mm f2.8 (preset diaphragm
instead of auto, and not as good at f2.8-4,
but fine otherwise)
105mm f2.8 MF Micro-Nikkor for the 105 f2.5
(still compact, but excellent at all focus
distances)

As for the multitude of closely-spaced Nikkors
(with often several versions of the same FL lenses
available), Nikon has offered a very wide range of
lens selection for a very long time, and Nikon often
redesigns lenses (the newer version is not always
better than the older, though...). For more on specific
lenses, see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.

BTW, I have settled on these sequences at various
times (or parts thereof...):

16, 20, 35, (50), 85, (135), 200, 300, 500
(current favorite) (or 80-200 f2.8)
8, 15, 28, 50, 105M, 200, 500
8, 15, 28, 50, 70-210/80-200
16, 20/24, 35, 85, 80-200, 300, 500, 700 (500+TC14B)
(or 24-120) (or 75-300)
(Throw in a TC14A and a PC and/or macro lens,
too, here and there, and substitute speed non-zooms
when needed...;-)
16, 35-105, TC14A
16, 28, 85, 300 (a favorite early sequence)
16, 28PC, 85/105M, TC14A

(Caution: one can get nutty doing this...!;-)