Sticker shock: Nikkor go ballistic
 

I'm an all-Canon man these days, with a couple of Canon flashes (580EX II and dual-head macro flash), four Canon cameras (yes, I use all of them), and a pretty fair selection of lenses, from 10-22 through to 500/5.

Unlike some photographers, I'm not religious about it. I don't buy Canon gear because I think that Nikon is evil and Pentax eats babies, I buy it because I made a rational decision some years ago that for my sort of photography - wildlife - Canon offered the best system at that time, and ever since then I have been pretty much locked in to the system I started with.

Happily locked in, I hasten to add. If I was starting from scratch today, I'd still go with Canon, though since Nikon's new range of modern long lenses, it isn't the no-brainer it was a few years ago.

Once you have 2 or 3 bits of gear - be it Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or whoever - then you are pretty much obliged to stay with that system. For example, when I bought a second DSLR for landscapes and macros, and also to act as an instant spare body in case of emergency, I got another 20D, as only by selecting a Canon could I use the second camera on my big lenses if the main one failed. Not much point in having a spare if it won't fit your lenses!

But ever since I wore the gloss off my first Canon SLR (a 20D with a 100-400), there has been one particular item on the Nikon list that I have envied: the magnificent 200-400/4 VR. I have a Canon 500/4 prime, which I wouldn't give away for all the tea in China, and I still have my old faithful Canon 100-400/5.6, which is small, light, and covers a very useful range. But many times I have wished for something with the light-gathering capacity of the 500/4 but more managable in size, and able to focus closer. I can live with 400mm instead of 500mm, but that extra stop is something I really miss.

So many times, on and off, I have lusted after a Nikkor 200-400/4 VR. Still a bit big and heavy for my taste, but nevertheless considerably lighter than the 500/4, less bulky, and able to focus down to 2m (where the 500 only goes to 4.5m). Plus, it's a zoom, and at the short ranges you tend to use this sort of lens at, the ability to zoom out to (say) 270mm when a bird comes closer than expected is a real bonus.

So, for some years now I've been eagerly watching the new lens announcements, hoping that Canon would announce a lens to match the one lens in the Nikon lineup Canon don't make anything similar to. No joy so far, of course.

But just lateley, it's occured to me that I no longer have to say exclusively Canon. I already have spare Canon bodies (if I break a camera I can just use a spare and continue the trip), so there is nothing to stop me buying the Nikkor 200-400 I've always wanted: all I have to do is buy a Nikon body to use with it: a D300 for example. The current Nikons are well-regarded and the days when their high-ISO was poor are long gone. Why not? Compared to what you pay for a lens, a 40D-class body is small change.

So, today I hit the web to look at buying a Nikon rig: 200-400 and I'm not sure which camera - buy the lens first is a good rule. D300 I suppose, but I can worry about that later.

This was when my brilliant idea ran hard aground on the rocks of financial reality, I knew that the 200-400 was an expensive lens. I fully expected it to be $AU 5000+, probably over $AU 6000. I'm not sure if I can afford that much, particularly as this would be my second-best lens (after the 500/4), but at least I could have a look and start thinking seriously about buying one.

Short answer: $AU 9,375. No misprint: $9,375.

This is not just dear, it's stratospheric. Totally out of the question. Hell, I can buy a 500/4 for that price, or most of a 600/4! Yes, I know it's a top-class lens, and not small at 400/4, and I know you pay a bit extra for a zoom. But at close to $10,000 for a 400mm lens .... well ..... I'm crazy, but I'm not that crazy.

So I'm back to wondering if Canon will ever release a 200-400/4 IS, I guess. One imagines that a direct Canon equivalent will come in around $AU 7000-8000 (all the new model Canon lenses are dearer than you expect, so let's not bother holding out hope of a $500-6000 sticker price for a 200-400/4 IS). Effectively, that's better than $3000 cheaper, because I don't have to buy a body as well.

My point?

Don't really have a point. Just that I was about to flip (again!) into spend-money-I-don't-have mode, but on a Nikon instead of a Canon this time, but that ludicrous pricetag made me blanch, so I'm venting on WPF instead. Which, all things considered, is a much better idea. Congenial company here aside, it's a heck of a lot cheaper!

I don't like to query your opinion, but why do you think that Nikon isn't evil and that Pentax don't eat babies?

^ :eek: :)

I keep waiting about a 100-400 5.6 because (apart from funds now I am a pensioner) they must surely replace the ancient existing one soon?? Who knows you might even get your dream but somehow I doubt it. How about researching a conversion ring and see what that would cost and what facilities you would lose. Probably minor things like focussing and metering! Oh dear I am rambling a bit! Time for my reality pills :D

You could look at it that you would be saving quite a bit on the 400 prime and getting some zoom thrown in?

I like babies, but couldn't eat a whole one.

not even the jelly ones :P

Have to be head first or it would be cruel.

Gosh Tannin

Those prices in Australia are astronomic, I thought the UK was a rip off but no contest.

The street price in the USA would mean you could buy the 200-400 (the lens I drool over) and a D300 plus the Air fair to New York and still have a thousand or so left over from the cost of the lens alone in Aussie.

Tannin, Money will always be the problem, no matter what you have you'd always like something better and more expensive. It's just taken me twelve months to save for my Nikon D300 (body only) and I have still to save the mega bucks for the lenses I want, now perhaps I should've taken up golf.

Alan