Mike, I traded my 20 and 24 lenses for a 20-35. From a subjective viewpoint, I find the 20-35 as sharp as the 20 and sharper than the 24. In general I find the 20-35 a better lens since I have all of the range at the sharpness I only had the 20 before. However it is a bulky lens and a problem if you want to travel light, whereas the 20 fits in any pocket. Alex -----Original Message----- From: Mike Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't want to re-run the debate about Nikon reps. However, while discussing the pros and cons of various lens combinations, the Nikon representative here (for a mini photo show) was adamant that the quality of the Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 zoom was equivalent to the relevant primes, e.g., 20mm f2.8 and 24 mm f2.8. Has anyone who has first hand experience of both these primes and the 20-35 zoom? Is the rep. correct or is he just spinning a story to try to get me to shell out over NZD$3000?
