New Nikon Body or New Nikon Lens???????

Nate,<P>

 

Field of view is - has to be - a personal preference. My own preference - right now - is the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AIS. But, again, it's just a preference - and, of course, I haven't used all, not anywhere near all, the lenses (wide or otherwise) Nikon has made. (I'm quite certain I've never shot with a 20mm Nikkor - I might love it).<P>

I also enjoyed using the Nikon 24/2.8 AIS - it was the only lens I used on a borrowed FE2 until I bought an F80 and requisite lenses. 20mm vs 24mm is certainly a matter of preference as Doug says, and in my case I found the 24mm lens an enjoyable all-rounder for both hiking and general city use during the three years I used it. I suppose 20mm might be too extreme for everyday photography.

Nikon FE2 with a 24/2.8 AIS...what pictures I've taken!!

It's personal preference when comparing the 20mm to 24mm, but as you can see, I'm quite biased. What a great little performer.

I only wish I had the money you do, and I'm 23!!! I also use a Nikon FE with the Series E 50mm, but have a 28mm 2.8D and 105mm 2.8 Micro D also. Lots of good advice so far, but the thing you want to ask yourself is do you need more features or do you need more glass? Having only 2 lenses, I would think you would lean towards more glass. Besides, as I understand it, the F100 doesn't even have mirror lock up which the FE sort of does. Another problem with the F100 is you really won't get to use most of the new features because you have manual lenses (no AF, no D, no matrix metering, etc...).

the equipment i have is from b day money baby siting money and the occasional photo sale MOST OF MY EQUIPMENT IS BOUGHT FOR ME

As to your latest lens question, Nate, there's quite a big difference between the 20 and 24. I have both, plus a 17, and 28 and 35 on the other side, and I use them all regularly -- for different purposes. For years I thought of the 20 as my standard lens (on an F, FE, or F90x, all of which I still use). It still gets lots of use, but the 24 is probably more practical. A 28 just isn't wide enough. The real difference between 20 and 24, aside from the obvious field of view, is the ease with which distortion can be controlled. It's easier to make pictures that don't bend/exaggerate straight lines or stretch out faces with a 24. In other words, how you hold the lens in relation to your subject matters a little less. You may like the extreme wide view, in which case the 20 can be made to do neat things (especially with a slim extension ring to get closer still!). But if you're not careful, you can easily insult the people you shoot with it. I've done that more than once, without seeing it at all in the viewfinder -- or even in the final slide/print. Nikon's various 24mm lenses are almost all terrific optically, going back to pre-AI models (I use one happily), but there seems to be a little more variation in the 20s. Mine is a fairly rare 20 3.5 AI that absolutely never has a flare problem, delivers pleasing crispness even wide open, and uses 52mm filters, but I'm led to believe that later ones -- AIS or AF 2.8s -- are better. I'd guess that the differences are small, so small that most of us normal folks wouldn't see them. In the end, my advice is go for a 24 AF non-D. It'll work a treat on your FE (keep that great camera!) and it's the best balance of affordability and optical quality among your various options. Build quality is NOT the same as on the MF models, if that matters. I'd go wide before I launched into that beautiful 80-200 monster, but that's just me. If you want to do head-and-shoulders portraits, why not get a 105 as well as the 24? You'd have a classic kit with money to spare, compared to the big investment for the zoom.