On 1 Dec 1998 11:21:09 GMT, duanej@remove.this.hpesdlj.fc.hp.com (Duane Jacobson) wrote:
>Neuman-Ruether (d_ruether@hotmail.com) wrote:

>: OK, I think one should split the zoom category into top-quality
>: moderate-range tele-zooms, and the rest...;-) The first category
>: *can* virtually match even rirst-rate non-zooms at almost all
>: stops. The second category is quite different, even with
>: top-quality zooms: the prime is generally faster, and
>: is generally noticeably sharper at stops wider than about
>: f8 (making the zoom the one I would recommend using with
>: a tripod...). Add the lower-weight/smaller-size/lower-price/
>: easier-focusing of the non-zoom to their better wide-stop
>: performance, and one wonders about the supposed "convenience"
>: advantage of the zoom. I would rather have a sharp wider stop
>: available for easy hand-holdability in lower light...
>: A good 35mm f2 (sharp at f2...) will beat any
>: 20/24/28/35--35/50/70/85/105/135/200mm made, unless the
>: few very best of these are used at f11-16... Gosh,
>: I wanna get a zoom...! ;-) (I do use tele zooms, though...;-)

>First of all, let me say that I enjoyed visiting your fine
>web site... lots of goodies.

Than' yuh kyn'ly fer th' kom-mentz...! ;-)
(There is a Nikkor evaluation list there, also, for
those interested... [under "I babble"].)

>I've always been firmly in the fast, fixed-length lens
>camp, but I think I'm going to finally buy a zoom to try
>out. After reading a couple of newer books on landscape
>photography (which is my main interest), and visiting your
>site, I gather that the best approach might be to cover the
>longer focal lengths with a zoom and leave fixed lengths in
>the short end. Does this make sense?

YES!!! ;-) For several reasons... Tele zooms are generally
much better in image quality than shorter FL zooms, and even
moderately-priced 70/80--200/210 lenses can be quite good
if stopped down a bit, and the best can be sharp wide open.
It is much less practical to move the camera around enough
to seriously reframe a tele shot than it is to move to reframe
a WA shot. Even the VERY best WA zooms can't touch the
image quality of a good WA non-zoom at even the middle stops
(and there are quite a few WA's that are sharp even at very
wide stops - stops that aren't even available on zooms).

>I'm not sure that I would use an 80-200mm very much, so my
>inclination is to try to find a used Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5.
>It appears that this is/was one of John Shaw's "workhorse"
>lenses, and I haven't been able to find any negative remarks
>with regard to this lens. This fellow, along with a fixed
>24mm and a fixed 35mm would meet most of my needs.

A good combination. Alternatives: 28mm PC or *AIS* 28mm
f2.8 instead of the 35 and 24; 20 instead of the 24;
35PC; 75-150E instead of the 50-135 (both are excellent,
sharp lenses [the 50-135 front does not rotate, the 75-150
is a bit better on converters, both are constant-stop
when zooming]). Lotsa lenses to choose from, though...! ;-)