I've used various 35mm systems over the years (from pentax to canon to contax). I currently have a pretty amazing 35mm system for my contax camera that includes a 28 f2.8, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.0 with an RTS and 139Q bodies. It's not that I'm disappointed with it. In fact it's amazing. The problem is that I don't find myself shooting 35mm that often (but would still like a solid system with a bit of extra cash for documentary projects). I'm certain I can sell everything for around $1800US. So, I'm actually considering selling the whole thing and switching over to Nikon (or possibly expanding my canon FD system) with pretty much the equivalent lenses (24 f2.8, 35 f2.0 or 1.4, 50 f1.4, 105 f2.5 or 1.8 with an fm2n and/or f2 bodies). However, I'm looking for advice from some people who have had made similar switches because there's no turning back. I'm a pretty serious amateur photographer and have some year-long, documentary-type projects underway that should be complete in 2010. I've only ever shot a nikon once before with a 50mm f1.4 and was happy with the results (happier than my canon 50mm f1.4 -hence my interest in nikon). I know answers are based on personal preference and it depends what you're shooting, etc. So, I guess the main question is quality comparisons between the lenses and bodies for various shots (everything from landscapes, portraits and still life). I'm a pretty versatile photographer with a hasselblad for MF and wista for 4x5 and shoot all types of films and subjects. I'll be blowing up photos from the smallest 8x10 to a 16x20 at the largest. Thanks in advance. ...Jordan.