[gtansley]

Required Usage: General\Portrait\Landscape\Mountain Biking\Snowboarding photo's

The big question is should I get the Nikon D90 with a 16-85mm VR lens or the Canon 40D with the 17-55mm f2.8 as my body and general lens starter.

From advice already mulled over on this website I really like the idea of the low f number lenses and Shake reduction systems. Low f for sports and low light mainly.

Depending on which combo people prefer could you also suggest a zoom lens to accompany one of the above combo's, Something upto maybe 200-300mm at its longest. I am not sure whether shake reduction would be necassary on the zoom lens? (Hopefully, the general lens options should give you an idea of budget i.e. similar budget for Zoom lens!!)

PS: Most decent zoom lenses seem to start at 70mm, in the case of the canon option of a 17-55 general lens, would I be missing a significant gap between 55mm and the starting 70mm of the zoom lens.

Really look forward to your thoughts.

[Big_Si_Owen]

the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is a great multipurpose lens with decent zoom. It virtually lives on my camera body! Ideal for travelling or those occasions you only want to take one lens with you.

[denno75uk]

If your looking for quality and versatility, then you'd have to go some way to beat the 40D/17-55 2.8 IS combo you mention. I think the f2.8 constant max aperture with IS perhaps trumps the Nikon with it's slower and variable max ap, even with the extra reach.
An obvious partner to that would be a 70-200 2.8, either Canon or, to save money, a Sigma/Tamron. I have a Sigma partnered with a Tamron 18-50 2.8 on my 30D and find it to be an incredibly versatile combination. And no, I don't notice any issue with the 'missing' 20mm focal length.