Hi--

>1. Thanks for the note re: Nikon 20-35mm.

You're welcome1

>2. I just have more of a "systems" problem with prime lens since I've
>used & gotten used to the convinience of zooms for the past 4 years.

But the primes are often so much smaller/lighter/faster/cheaper/sharper
that it is no contest, for me, at the short end, where I find primes
easier to use. At the mid-long end, I prefer the 80-200mm f2.8, unless
I need greater speed or lighter/smaller lens (a 135mm f2.8 AIS is
FAR smaller and lighter than the zoom....).

>3. I just did an unscientific test using fuji super g 100 print film,
>processed at the same place. I printed one roll with my Contax 167 MT
>Distagon 28mm 2.8 and the other with my Nikon FM2 and 24-50mm, all shot
>at 28mm. I shot the same scene at the same time, using same f-stop /
>speed etc... (I realize that the 24-50mm f/stop is variable).

Fairer would be the 28mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor against the Nikkor zoom, or
the Zeiss 28mm f2.8......

>4. Results: First of all, none of the shots are "bad". They all look
>good. However, there's a noticable "washed out" low contrast look in
>the Nikon shots. In some of the shots, there's also a noticeable
>decrease in sharpness (it may have been my focusing). I realize that
>this is not a great test. I usually shoot B & W and then develop it
>myself and make huge prints (no time).

It would need to be identical subjects under identical lighting, etc.
I have not used the 24-50mm Nikkor, but I would guess that the contrast would be quite good. And the 28mm f2.8 Nikkor AIS is a VERY good lens.

>5. Question: Any thoughts on the results? Nikon emphatically states
>that their zooms, and specifically the 24-50mm, is equal to that of
>prime lens. If this is the case, is it more of a case of the zeiss
>giving better results? Thanks for your insight (I'm in the midst of
>changing from zoom to prime, and maybe from Nikon to Zeiss / Contax-- I
>know your a big Nikon guy so please don't be offended!)
> Harry Minoru Shin

I do prefer Nikon (and many of the Yashica-made "Zeiss" lenses, especially
the wider ones, are antique designs that are showing their age...;-),
for their uniform excellence (with a few exceptions, some of which
are recent, alas), uniformity of performance across the frame, range of
selection (new and used), reasonableness of price, and high resale value.
I would NOT agree that the Nikkor zooms are equal to primes, with a very
few exceptions (or at a few specific apertures and distances with some zooms). The 80-200 f2.8 and 75-150 are zooms that can be compared with primes, and the 35-105 MF (SELECTED sample!), 50-135, and a couple of
others are close, with a few others very nice at some stops, and the rest definitely inferior to primes. I have not tried the 24-50 or 20-35, but
the 28-85, while good, is not like the prime lenses in its range, and
the 28-70 is worse. I do not like most of the Nikkor 35-->X zooms.
I guess I am arguing myself into the position that most zooms should
be avoided if highest quality is sought, unless necessary for some
convenience or other reason, except for a few short tele types.
David Ruether