On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:35:30 GMT, "JK" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3dcd36ac.30938242@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 20:33:15 GMT, "Kevin Neilson"
>> wrote:

>> >Here you go, fast and sharp:
>> >28mm F/2.8
>> >85mm F/2.0
>> >
>> >Together these weigh about the same as the zoom (500g) but you get much
>> >better quality and speed. The 85mm will cost around $100 on ebay. The
>28mm
>> >is more, but you could get the f/3.5 instead for under $100. You'll be
>> >pleased.
>> >
>> >-Kevin

>> The best solution of all...
>> These are sharp wide-open,
>> and generally faster than
>> the zooms.
>> David Ruether

>I see your point. I already have a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8, and a
>70-210mm f4. I am very pleased with their performance but this is already a
>cumbersome collection to carry and it's inconvenient to switch back and
>forth when you are on the run or taking pictures of fast-moving kids.
>Currently, I use a consumer-level Tokina 28-70mm f4 as a handy catch-all
>when I want to go light, but it exhibits fall-off and distortion at the
>short end and it is pretty soft overall.

Ah, then, how 'bout doing what I do
for weddings: use two identical bodies,
each with a suitable lens...? Your
lenses are all good ones, and a 24-100,
24-70/210, or 50-70/210 pairing is a
good solution, too... For fast action,
though (and for most "people" photos
in general...), I prefer using a single,
non-zoom lens: a 20, 24, 28, or 35 - while
moving quickly for framing...