andreas, > in case you need a 72mm polarizer (e.g. for the 1.4/85 or the 2.8/180 - > these are the lenses i bought the b+w pola for), the wider front > end (?) of > a nikon model does hardly play a role - even with the original Filters are not Nikon's principal business, so it makes sense to make only one version for all their lenses. Besides, what if you later add a Nikon 28 f/1.4 or a 24-120? > or take a look at the F3 HP. i don't know the US price, but the > street price > in germany for that dino: DM 3,295 ($ 1,950), with a clear I bought an F3 15 years ago for US$500 and sold it recently for about the same price. So, for the cost of interest, I had a great camera that could well have lasted me another 15 years. (BTW, interest rates were double back then and inflation has probably halved the value of today's dollar. Therefore I could buy a new F3 today for $2000 and have the same cost of ownership as I did 15 years ago!) Truly, the bottom line is that Nikon's prices -- regardless of your own "feelings" about their manufacturing costs -- can only be sustained if their customers keep buying the products. If you don't think you're getting fair value for your money, you know what to do. That's not to suggest that you shouldn't keep looking at alternatives for accessories and buy them in cases where you do not need whatever Nikon is offering. (Can you believe what Mercedes charges for cheap plastic replacement parts <g>?) Joel
