dwever, many thanks for your kind comment. But to make things plain I'm neither a real expert nor a professional user but a sheer amateur depicting his very personal impressions and hampered by his German school English. So please take my words with a grain of salt. ;-)
Question 1.: Very easy - whenever size and weight become important, e.g. on longer walks, when I have to carry my DSLR + tele lens, when I haul a lot of other stuff in my backback, when using a scope is not at top priority etc, I choose the 65 over the 95. The same holds for observations at close range when the wider field of view at 25x magnification of the 65 serves me better than the higher maximum magnification of the 95. In all other cases, especially whenever I want to bridge large distances e.g. at the sea or at lakes, whenever I want the best optical quality and last not least in bad, low-contrast lighting (dark cloudy days, dawn, dusk) I prefer the 95. Very short: quality > weight = 95, weight > quality = 65.
Question 2.: A very personal decision and depending of your intended use of the 115. If you are willing to take it with you regularly I suppose you could take my answer concerning q. 1 and replace 95 with 115. In this case, I would recommend definitely the 65 over the 85 as the former is relatively small, light, inexpensive and hence a real alternative to the 115 (or the 95 as well). In other words: If you want to go light, go really light!
But if you purpose to use the 115 less frequently, e.g. only stationary or in low-light conditions, your second lens module should be all-purpose and as the 85 is clearly more versatile than the 65 I would recommend the 85 in this case.
