[Tannin]

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!