I prefer 1 and 4.
5 has too much dead black space in it for me. The silhouettes in 2 and 3 are interesting, but for me it's more of a "neato" kind of thing that you get from using a wide-angle lens. I hope this doesn't sound conceded, but while those two don't really do anything for me, I can see why you took them.
This series is rather cool because you are exploring the effect that different focal lengths have on the image. A lot of people just use a zoom lens to save themselves a walk without realizing the effect it has on the image. It's not just about getting the subject bigger or smaller. At 50mm (for 35mm film), the camera will see things just about how our eye does. When you use a telephoto setting (higher than 50mm) the apparent distance between objects front-to-back appears to be compressed. This is because as objects get further away from us in the image, they don't shrink as much as they would when using our eye. Size is a major visual clue that allows us to tell distance. This gives the effect that the objects are close together.
With a wide-angle (anything less than 50mm), the distance between objects gets stretched. This is because as objects get further away, they shrink faster than they would with the naked eye.
You can see as you step from pic 1 to 2 to 3, that the hills in the background appear to be further away from the grass each time. Actually, since you are stepping closer to those plants each time, the hills look about the same and the grass gets closer. The distance between the to appears to streach more though, no matter which way you look at it.
Choice of focal legth has a big impact on the look of your image. You'll often hear people recommending that you should use prime lenses (a single focal length, like 50mm only, or 85mm, or 35mm) rather than a zoom. Using a zoom can give you too many options and it can be hard to learn to previsualize how the camera will see the view if you don't consistantly use certain focal lengths. If you shoot one at 37, and one at 62, and one at 77, and then one at 64, you end up all over the place, rarely using the same setting twice.
If you use a zoom, try using it just at the marked settings, like 28, 35, 50, 90, and 135.
Anyway, back to the pics. Wide-angles can have some pretty cool effects by making the close subjects so large, but it can end up feeling like a gimmick. The conceded part is where I say that this is the kind of shot I think all photographers have to go through as the explore what the different lens settings offer them, but it's cool that you are there.
Since you are already experimenting with this, a cool exercise to try is to go out and shoot a bunch of different subjects, each at three focal legths: one shot at 50mm, one at the smallest setting your zoom will go (28 or 35?), and one at the longest (105 or 135? or whatever). If you really want to see this in action, take three pictures of a yardstick with the camera on a tipod and the stick angled about 145-160 degrees away. Look at how close/far the markings are from each other.
This will train your eye to see like your camera does. Eventually you will find yourself looking at subjects as if you had a lens on your eyes, just while you are walking around working, shopping, or whatever. You'll see something that will make you think "that would look cool with a telephoto" or "this would be interesting with a wide-angle". You'll wish you had your camera with you all the time because you will keep seeing "shots".
Once a person get a solid feel of how the lens affects the image, they aren't so captured by the "neato" aspect of things and they can choose the right setting for the impact they have in mind. Hope that made sense.
)
I can't see the images!
I was only using angelfire until I had a chance to sign up for a web host. I guess now I have to get one soon. Anyway, for now you can go to 
