I have two OM2's, a 21mm f3.5, a 28mm f3.5, and a 50mm f2.0. I'm not a pixel peeper but the lenses are good-enough for me but Zuiko lenses are known for being quite good. So now I'm thinking of going Nikon. The F/F2's and lenses (atleast the early ones..) have a reputation for being extremely durable and well-made. Optics, to me, are a bit secondary, I think. I want nice optics but I truthfully haven't come across many lenses that are bad. A minute drop in quality is fine, but it's incredibly hard to quantify what is minute and what is quality. My primary motive for switching is because I prefer the Nikon bodies: they're larger and heavier. Here is my plan: Nikon F2; 20mm f3.5, 28mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0, 105mm f2.5. All non-ai. No strong desire for 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. All non-ai because they're cheaper, "legendary", and probably good-enough. I prefer mechanical bodies and don't need a meter (if I stick with OM then I'm going OM1 for sure). I don't want to spend an incredible amount of money but I believe that these all can be had very cheaply. Questions: 1. I'm happy with all these focal lengths speeds, but should I opt for a newer design for any of the intended focal lengths? Looking through ebay these all can be had for $100-$200, even the 20mm. The only one that I might go newer is with the 20mm because of the filter thread. 2. How do these stack up with the Zuiko's. I hate to ask a direct lens comparison but I figured I'd ask anyways. Zuikos are newer so one would think newer is better but Nikon has been known for making great glass too. If it matters I shoot all bw film and have no serious intention in going digital. I want this camera for walk-around mostly. I have MF for tripod work. The main appeal for OM is the size, really. However having a "better" body might mean more to me, not sure.