"Luiz F. Coimbra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote You're right, although a 28~70/2.8 would provide even better results. Yes, it's not a great travel lens and a 24~120mm VR would be such a thing, but IMHO nikoneers misses Tilt & Shift lenses much more than VR ones, what do you think? Depends on one's interests for sure. Myself, I have no especial interest in T&S lenses. I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with N's apparent obstinacy to update their old lens lineup to AF and refusal to introduce IS. Years after AF was introduced, still no 400mm F/5.6 AF Nikkor. The Nikkor 300mm f/4 will not AF with N's TC's. Mirror lockup only available on the F5 and then only a hard to use (archaic IMO) lever-style rather than a truly useful pre-release that could be practical with truly long lenses. Heck, the old Nikkormat did MLU better than that! In all these respects, important to me and obviously not so to some others, C is out in front. I am unsure of the exact market N is catering to but it surely isn't the nature photog. set. Canon seems light years ahead in every category of lens and body feature that is important to me. As I've said before, I can not afford to dump all my Nikon stuff accumulated over the past 30 years but were I starting over from scratch, C would be my choice today. And yes, contrary to the opnions of others, I feel the Canon 300mm f/4 IS is an excellent reason to buy an EOS body. Used with the C EF-14 TC, it offers you both IS and AF at 420mm f/5.6. Sure is attractive to this bird photographer and sure is absolutely unavailable from Ma N. -- Terence A. Danks Nova Scotia, Canada http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
