Nice shots but a very ugly plane.

I think your kit lense is just fine. If you need more range go for a Canon 70-300mm (or Sigma or Tamron).

As a Nikonian I can´t give a more usefull comment, as I only use Nikkors in the zoom range.

What does Nikon have to match the 350D or the 20D ? and when did it bring out a camera to match the 10D?

For those that do not believe that MPs are everything the 350D is closely matched by the D70s. The 20D has no comparable Nikon at the moment.

The 10D and the D100 were fairly closely matched.

Well, similarly the MiG-25 was designed to intercept prospective threat aircraft with Mach3 performance. Unlike the A-5 it is not designed to drop nukes as its primary mission. Yet the MiG is supposed to be a copy of the Vigilante?

I’m not denying that MiG may *originally* have been ‘inspired’ by the A-5, but the end-result obviously turned out to be something completely different. So different infact that there is very little resemblance at all. Even calling it ‘based on the A-5’ is a bit of an exaggeration IMHO.

There sure have been far more obvious cases of Soviet copying 🙂

All this copying stuf is nosense. The only nation that copied airplanes is China. Between the US and the Soviet Union you might could say that they inspired each other, but more in the way that a new plane of one sided forced the other to develop a plane to match it. Given that both sides were always equally matched in their knowledge of aerodynamics, it is obvious that comparable requirements meant comparable results.
The supersonic A-5 was not a fighter, but it had 2 strong engines that needed variabel inlets. The most simple configuration in an age in which stealth was no problem, was the simpel and straight rectangular inlet. When the Russian desingend the MiG-25 to counter it they came to the same conclusion. But the higher speed meant that they had to make changes. The twin tails were important to keep the plane stable.
Now the USAF wanted a F-4 replacement that needed to be fast and yet nimble. So they went for a huge wing, two big engines and variable inlets. In a time in which there was no FBW yet, the plane had to be stable, so they went for twin tails.
Look at the SU-15 and the F-4, similiar goals also lead to often comparable solutions. Or the F-18 and the SU-27 / MiG-29.

The simple reason is that the laws of aerodynamic and physics are the same for everyone.

If you would focus on climb and speed, then the wing design of the F-15 would be not very supporting.
The F-16 was an answer for a need for a cheap and nimble dayfighter, as it was obvious that the F-15 would be to expensive to replace all F-4s the USAF had with it.

To be honest most of those huge lense are rarely offering more then 400-500mm, so they do not get you much closer then the normal lenses other use. They are so big, because they are more light sensitive, meanung that you often see a 300mm 2.8 or 400mm 2.8 lense. Which gives you the possibility to shoot at lower ISO setting or even when other have to stop shooting as their shutter time will get too slow and blur the pictures.

Pak-FA ist the most important aircraft entering service in the next 15 years. The question is, if the russians will go the full way and try to match the F-22 in all apsects, or if they decide that a RCS reduced and upgraded SU-27 based fighter would be just as efficent, for their needs.