Ah, easily the best advice of all...! ;-)
(But, see the last line, below...;-)

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:00:07 -0700, "Gene" wrote:

>I'm going to go against the grain here, but I've been married 31 years and
>if you want to stay married that long, keep in mind that this is a honeymoon
>trip, not a photo expedition.
>
>Get a good point and shoot camera that will fit in your pocket. Get all the
>tourist type shots with your bride as the main subject. If the camera has a
>self timer, get a lot of shots of the two of you together standing if front
>of a giant redwood or at the winery or where ever. A small mini pod or clamp
>will allow you to prop the camera on a rock or clamp it to the window of
>your car.
>
>Focus your attention on your bride, not your hobby. You want her to remember
>how loving and attentive you were, not how you spent all your time playing
>with your toys. It will pay off in later years. And to all you that were
>recommending what lens to buy, take some flowers home tonite. They just seem
>to mean more when given for no other reason then to say "I love you." And
>for the ladies, us guys don't respond that well to flowers. Try a Leica M7
>with a 50mm Summicron lens and watch us melt!
>
>Gene

> wrote in message
>news:3D2B7415.A71A1CE5@bellatlantic.net...
>> I'm getting married in an month and a half. Since I'm from NY and she's
>> originally from WA, we're having a ceremony and reception in NY, then a
>> second reception in Tacoma a week later. Our honeymoon plans include
>> driving down the coast from Washington, down through Oregon and winding
>> up in San Francisco. I'm looking for some Pacific Coast Highway lens
>> recommendations.
>>
>> My current kit includes a Nikon N80 with a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron
>> 24-135. I've also got a Nikon FE (and an FM) and (in addition to the AF
>> lenses) a 70-210 F4 and 201 teleconverter. I still haven't decided if I
>> go full boat and bring both systems, or try to go light and pick up
>> either a 70-210 AF-D from KEH or a cheapie 70-300G. I'm thinking
>> light...
>>
>> For landscapes/seascapes and whatever nature blunders in my path, I'm
>> not sure if the 210 will be enough of a leap over the 135 I already
>> have. For the price of the 70-210, I could go with a used 70-300AF D,
>> but for 1/2 that I could get the G. For an amateur who just wants to
>> get closer w/o scaling a cliff, will I hate myself for going on the
>> cheap? Has anyone used both the 210 and the 300?
>>
>> Recommendations?

If you ***MUST*** buy more lenses, you may find this
interesting: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.