I can't help but to chuckle at this. I didnÂt even remember who you were until until your last sentence, and then I recalled another thread where someone was hypersensitive and then the name clicked. YouÂre so touchy, Bill. I hope that you are not referring to me, I was in total agreement with you in the last discussion you were part of. No, not everyone is out to get you, or argue with you. You seem to become insulted whenever others state their opinion. I donÂt believe anyone is here to argue. Oh well is rightÂmuch love to you Bill. I believe the SIGMA 70-200 f2.8 was the last lens inquired about. It is a fraction of the cost compared to the canon. . Is 200mm going to limit the op? Maybe, but to a very, very small degree. From what I can tell of her previous shots, she is not in the nose bleed section, nor is she selling her pictures to SI. True, the 400mm would be a lot better, cÂmon - 6.5K? I guess thatÂs why they get paid to be at the game and I pay to watch.

While Digatal SLR's do not have the same problems with camera shake as Point & shoot, it can still be an issue particularly at longer exposures. I have moved to Nikon VR lenses for that reason and I am quite happy. Mind you it will also depend on the kind of photography you are planning. I do a lot of macro using a 105 mm and bird photography using a 70-300 amongst others. Longer and heavier the lens the more valuable I have found the VR.

I began my interest in photography with a Pentax Spotmatic 35mm SLR back in 1968 and if someone were to offer me a dollar each for all the 1.5x, 2x & 3x tele convertors that I have thrown away over the years I could take my GF out to dinner tonight..LOL. Over the years I have stayed with Pentax for two reasons. First off, I have shot over 250,000 frames with my original Spotmatic and it still performs well. In addition, while Pentax has always stayed on the cutting edge of technology, often being the first to introduce new technologies they have managed to design their cameras in such a way that we can use any Pentax lens ever made on the brand new DSLR's. In fact, both Nikon and Canon build adapters that will allow you to use the old Pentax screw mount lenses on their new cameras. Generally telephoto lenses are used for taking pictures of distant scenes or objects outdoors, well beyond the maximum limits of a flash unit so we are obligated to shoot under the available light conditions. If we are taking a picture of a stationary object we can easily mount the camera & lens on a tripod and compensate for low light conditions by extending the shutter speed but, if you are taking nature shots of birds and animals shutter speed is critical because the subject is not going to remain motionless long enough to permit long shutter speeds. You may have also noticed that as we extend focal length we loose effective aperture. By example, your normal lens may be f1.2- f2, but if you extend to 200mm the maximum aperture will be in the order of f3.5 and at 300mm it will be f4.5 - f5.6. Every time we close the lens one f-stop we must cut shutter speed in half to get the same exposure. By Example, if you have an exposure of 1/125 @ f2 then stop the lens down to f3.5 you must drop the shutter speed to 1/60 to get the same exposure. Let us assume for the moment that you are shooting a scenic shot in late afternoon with your normal lens and you get an exposure of f2 @ 1/125. That would be a very easy hand held shot but what if you changed to a 300mm lens that has a maximum aperture of f4.5 ? You are losing two f-stops of light so you must now change the shutter speed 2 f-stops so the exposure would now be 1/30 @ f4.5 which is well below the 1/250 minimum for a hand held shot with a 300mm lens. Years ago the big 3 camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon & Pentax) did not even offer a tele converter but due to pressure from 3rd party aftermarket sources they do now offer them, although they keep them very low key in their advertising for good reason. The main problem with tele converters, and what none of the third party manufacturers openly state is the "light insertion loss". Typically a tele converter will introduce a minimum of 2 f-stops of light loss and some go as high as 4 stops. Now it can be argued that with most DSLR's we can compensate for the light loss by increasing the ISO index. (every time we double the ISO we gain one f-stop), which is true, but keep in mind that for every increasing in ISO there is a loss in image resolution and a significant increase in grain (called noise on digitals). Tele converters also introduce both Chromatic & spherical aberrations which is a color & edge distortion that becomes very problematic when printing enlargements. While on the subject of aftermarket products there is another option needs to be mentioned, that being mirror lenses. While the big 3 camera manufactures do make some very good mirror lenses, there is a long list of aftermarket manufactures that build inexpensive 500mm & 1000mm mirror lenses. Be very careful here because most of the inexpensive mirror lenses have a fixed aperture which is typically f-8. While they will perform marginally well for shooting scenics from a tripod, due to the fact that most birds and animals are most active in early morning or late afternoon those lenses are almost useless for nature photography.

The D90 kit lens is great, my only knock on it is the platic mount, but you'll get that on any kit lens. The video on the D90 is nothing to write home about. I rarely, rarely use the live view, so I find no interest in one that tilts. To me that would be a waste. but you might find it handy. I think you be happy with either one, but you did list more Pros for the 90. I have never used the D5000 so I can not compare the low light ability, but the D90 is nice.