On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 03:09:19 GMT, "George Gill" wrote:

>I have a Nikon F 80 with a 20mm f2.8 lens and a 60mm macro that I use as
>non-macro much of the time. I have the Nikon 28-80 G and the 70 - 300G but
>I like the primes better for sharpness and like the control I can have on
>the depth of field with f 2.8 lenses. I also live and shoot in Canada, in
>the mountains, so I often haven't got an excess of light.
>
>I shoot mostly scenics, some large animal (cows, donkeys etc.) portraits
>and so I use the wider angles to the 60 mm range quite a lot. I may keep
>the 70 -300 as it's quite good when I need a long lens.
>
>I've looked into 24mm, 28mm 35mm and even the 50mm f1.8 lenses. I'm not
>that young and can't take a lot of weight. As it is I'm carrying 4 lenses
>if I take them all.
>
>*** I can't seem to decide on what 2 lenses I ought to get to go between
>the 20 and the 60mm. Maybe I only need one?
>
>I'd appreciate your input as I've talked to everyone I know and done all the
>research I can do and still vacillate daily!
>
>Thanks.
>
>George Gill

I like the sequence 20, 35, 85 (and the 85 f1.8 AF
is FAR better at the edges/corners than the 60 macro
for near-infinity work at stops wider than f8-11).
I generally avoid lens sequences with too little
difference between FLs, so with a 20, I would not
use a 24; with a 24, I would not use a 28; with a
28, I would not use a 35; with a 35, I would not use
a 50; and with a 50, I would not use a 60... A 20
and a 50 f1.8 is not a bad pairing, actually, or a
20, 35, 60 if you do not want to replace the 60
for near-infinity focus. Better yet, if your camera
could properly meter manual lenses (shame on Nikon
for eliminating proper metering with MF lenses!):
the 20mm, a 35mm PC, and an 85mm... (the PC is an
excellent choice for landscapes since it is evenly
sharp to the corners unshifted, and it permits
shooting trees and waterfalls WA and "straight",
and it can be used to make mountains look taller...;-).