brent andersen

<p>I ordered one from Amazon Tuesday and it was here today. The camera was well packaged and Amazon has improvd in this area IMO.</p>

<p>I love my 100-400L and it is one of the great lenses that keeps me in the Canon system. I use if for just about everything including wildlife, landscapes and even florals. My copy is plenty sharp and I see little practical difference between it and my 300 f/4 IS prime. If you need it, just buy it. It's hard to beat for image quality and versatility. I don't use a protective lens filter and in my experience they degrade images on this particular lens in bright, outdoor settings.</p>

<p>I occasionally need something wider than 24mm, so use the less expensive 17-40 L with the 5d2. For portraits I generally use the 70-200, but also use the 24-105L. I also like the 70-200 for florals - also use the 300 f/4 and 100-400 L here. As others have already mentioned, you need to use what you have and see what you need to add. I typically need longer rather than wider.</p>

<p>I would go with the 100-400 L for this. If you still need more reach you will be looking at a crop sensor camera. It's not really clear how much reach you will need. Can't you do a shoot first and then go from there? In my experience you need reach and flexibility.</p>

<p>The Canon 1.4x TC (version II) works great with my 70-200 f/4/IS. I use it mostly for florals. See the 2008 and 2009 florals at http://www.pbase.com/bander. I may have some shots on photo.net but I didn't always list the TC as being used.</p>

<p>Canoga Camera, consistently good prices and top notch service.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/4 IS should work well. It does well with the 1.4X extender in my experience. The !00-400 L is rather heavy and I wouldn't want to be packing it around on vacation unless I was sure I needed the 640mm reach on the 30D. I would even consider the 70-300 IS lens and it is light and less conspicuous than the 70-200 L. I haven't used this lens but have used the similar Nikon 70-300VR with a D300 and have been impressed. I'm not sure what kind of light you will be shooting in and that might make a difference in lens preference.</p>

<p>I love mine and it is one of the lenses that keeps me in the Canon system.</p>

I often find that I have to use equipment before I actually know what works for me. Forget the obsessive ruminations. In your case you might want to buy used. If it doesn't work you can sell it without losing your shirt.

 

If I am in tourist mode I wouldn't want to pack my 100-400L unless I knew for sure that I would need its reach. For almost everything else I do - landscapes, wildlife, florals - I use the 100-400L a lot and usually grab it rather than the 70-200 f/4L. It's very flexible and gives me good image quality. I can get by 95% of the time with the 24-105L and the 100-400L. I use the 5D and 40D. For vacations and when traveling light I like the Nikon D300 and the 18-200 lens. Looks as if Canon is coming out with a 18-200, so that might be an option.

With the 5D: 24-105L and the 100-400L. I rarely use the 17-40L or the 70-200 f/4L IS.

What Eric says.

"Just got my 18-200mm VR from Amazon. It seems like Nikon has finally fixed the lens creep issue. Mine does not creep at all. Okay, the zoom ring is a bit stiff now..."

 

Just give it time....

I would suggest the 18-200VR. If you might need wider, keep the 12-24 with you. The 18-220 is very versatile and the VR pays off, especially if you're not packing a tripod. I could never see any real difference between my 18-200 and the 17-55 f/2.8.

It really depends on what you do with your camera. I shoot both systems and would be hard pressed to give up either the 5D or the D300. The D300 is the better all-around camera in my estimation. I do like the Canon system better, and as you noted several of the L lenses are real values.

 

If you're heavily into landscapes and portraits I would consider the 5D, although the D300 also does very well here and is clearly the better sports camera and would be my preference for wildlife given the crop factor and the AF system.The D300 also has the better meter.

Both cameras will get the job done although the Nikon is very nice and worth the extra money, at least for me. Lots of folks speculate and theorize about the 18-200 VR Nikon, but my copy is the real deal and I use it all the time while the 70-200VR and 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkors sit in the bag. I use both systems and also own a 5D. Given your budget I'd look real close at the Canon.

There's a simple solution for me, the 24-105L. It's smaller and lighter than the 24-70L, my copy is just as sharp or sharper, and it has IS. I sometimes wish that Canon would come out with, say, a 28-200L lens, although IQ would likely suffer. I use the 18-200VR Nikon and it is very handy. If you need f/2.8 I would recommend the Tamron 28-75mm.

There's a simple solution for me, the 24-105L. It's smaller and lighter than the 24-70L, my copy is just as sharp or sharper, and it has IS. I sometimes wish that Canon would come out with, say. a 28-200L lens, although IQ would likely suffer. I use the 18-200VR Nikon and it is very handy. If you need f/2.8 I would recommend the Tamron 28-75mm.

I agree - the 40D and 5D VFs are quite close. Finally, Canon has put a decent VF in one of their prosumer bodies.

The Nikon 18-200VR has been fetching $800-$1000, so newbies aren't likely to line up to buy it. It has been in short supply because it delivers versatility and quality images.

The Nikon 18-200VR is all about versatility and decent image quality. My copy is sharp. With the crop factor of my D200 I have an image stabilized 300mm lens that focuses to about 18 inches. I can go from shooting close-ups of flowers to shooting wild horses in the desert and not have to change lenses and the image quality is good. I also use a 5D and just ordered a 40D, but will keep the Nikon combo. Canon is missing the boat here.

Another vote for the 18-200VR. Availability and prices are improving.

My copy of the Tamron back focused. I sent it back.

The "leaked" 40D sounds like a Rebel on steroids. Canon dropped the ball with the 30D and history may repeat itself.

I notice a very slight movement with my Acratech V2 when shooting macro with a heavy lens. Otherwise it works great and is my preferred ballhead. I own or have owned the Markins M20, BH-55, and both Kirks. Actually, they're all quite good, the V2 just works best for me.

Photozone.com also shows sharper results from the 18-135mm vs. 18-200VR. I believe this is the case at all focal lengths. Still, I doubt if there is any real world difference with prints and the 18-200VR is incredibly versatile. I especially like the close focusing. With the cropped Nikon sensors I have the equivalent of 300mm with VR and I'm only about 18" away from my subjects - usually flowers. I can leave the tripod in the house, forget the big zooms and 180 macro, and just go out and have fun.