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

>Guys,
>Thanks for all the advice. You are all right in that it depends upon what
>kind of photography I'm doing. I was doing mostly landscapes, and the 50mm
>and 28mm worked well. I'd like to do more potratiture, however, and that's
>why I'm getting the 105. I recognized a gap in my collection when I was
>trying to photograph butterflies and in order to get the 50mm lens close
>enough to them I scared them away, so for applications like this I need
>something quite a bit longer. Probably I'm not doing certain types of
>photography because of my hardware limitations, so I'm trying expand my
>options. Maybe you wouldn't even consider painting a canvas unless someone
>gave you a brush first.

You might consider the 105mm f2.8 macro lens as the
alternative to the 105mm f2.5 - it is compact in
the MF version, and equally good for distant subjects,
far better for close work. (see for more on it:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html).

>I see conflicting comments on zooms. I might end up getting one for travel,
>and I'm sure they're better than they used to be. Carrying around two or
>three smaller fixed lenses doesn't seem a bad tradeoff for the increase in
>quality and speed though.

I generally agree, when it comes to short and medium FL
zooms (I prefer the greater speed and wide-stop image
quality of the non-zooms), but lenses like the 50-135
f3.5, 70-210 f4E, and 75-150 f3.5E perform well, are fairly
compact, and are not as slow at the long end as most AF
zooms. For short zooms, the compact 35-105 f3.5-4.5
***in a good sample*** is an excellent travel lens, as
is the remarkably good 24-120 f3.5-5.6 (both show more
linear distortion than most non-zooms, though).
Consider also the TC14A if you are space-saving - it
can give you in-between FLs for emergency uses...

>I didn't realize there was such a difference between a 24mm and 28mm. I'll
>have to check out that 24...

I own both only because I own a LOT of lenses - in a small
system, I would go to the 20mm f2.8 for its greater
difference from 28mm and for its excellent quality for a
reasonable price. Avoid all other Nikkor 20mms, though,
since they are not up to the 2.8 in image quality (except
for specific conditions).