my ideal lens

[andyt70]

would be a 18mm-250/300mm macro AF with VR/OS/IS for £99
however... i know that doesnt exist

so what in all your combined wisdom and experience would be a suitable real life alternative
basically i usually shoot landscapes, but occasionally will want to do a bit of macro / v close up but not technically macro work plus some zoom, high end zoom will most likely be on a tripod so is VR needed?

cheers

[Phil T]

Not sure what your budget is but on the end of my D80 you'll either find the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Nikkor 18-200VR. VR & tripods don't mix well but you can turn it off. Hope that helps? If you can define a budget you may get more specific suggestions...

[DoubleT]

i think my ideal lens would be a 10-600mm f1.4 and still weighed under 1kg and cost £100 and as sharp through out the rage as a prime lens!, but now im just dreaming.

may dad has a sigma 28-300, macro ( at the longest end) doesnt get the best reviews but the results seem quite good.

[StewartR]

When I bought my 350D, I got the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 zoom. It's something of a jack-of-all-trades, and therefore of course a mater of none, but for the price (around £200 these days) it really is very useful. There's also now an optically stabilised version for I think around £250.

It's pretty good at the wide-to-medium focal lengths. For example here are a couple of panos I shot with it in the Lakes. If you click on them you can see larger versions, and the amount of detail is quite decent.

f=18mm
http://StewartR.smugmug.com/photos/178088581-M.jpg (http://stewartr.smugmug.com/gallery/2580250#178088581-O-LB)
Click on the image to see a larger version (1750x800px, 541kB) in my SmugMug gallery.

f=40mm
http://StewartR.smugmug.com/photos/160200203-M.jpg (http://stewartr.smugmug.com/gallery/2580250#160200203-O-LB)
Click on the image to see a larger version (3000x785px, 902kB) in my SmugMug gallery.

And here's one of about 1,000,000 portraits of my cat, taken at a medium focal length. It isn't anything special by itself, but when you look at the 100% crop below it you'll see that it's really quite surprisingly and satisfactorily sharp.

f=72mm
http://StewartR.smugmug.com/photos/147263993-M.jpg

f=72mm, 100% crop
http://stewartr.smugmug.com/photos/147264022-O.jpg

However it doesn't seem to be as sharp as this at full zoom (200mm). In addition, it's not a "proper" macro lens - though it will focus down to about 45cm which is good for moderate close-ups.

All in all I'm very pleased with it.

[andyt70]

wow cant fault those shots i sometime wonder if reviews suggesting some of these jack of all trades lenses are not up to the job are just being a bit too fussy :)
as for budget ... i'd be willing to wait to save for say 400 ish, but would prefer much lower :)

[StewartR]

wow cant fault those shots i sometime wonder if reviews suggesting some of these jack of all trades lenses are not up to the job are just being a bit too fussy :)Thanks Andy. To be honest, recently I've found myself a bit disappointed with the Sigma 18-200 at the long end of its zoom. That's probably because I've been trying to photograph some of the more unusual birds we get in our garden - for example this one (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=38505) - and it's really not up to the job. It's a bit soft, and of course a maximum aperture of f/6.3 isn't much use unless you've got bright light. No complaints with the lens generally, as you'll have gathered, but I guess it's not quite the jack of all trades.

So I'm thinking of replacing it with something like a Sigma 17-70 or a Canon 17-85 IS, both of which have great reputations for image quality and would make good walkaround lenses, plus a 70-200 or 70-300 or something like that.

Or on the other hand I might well keep it for those (frequent) occasions when I just want to carry a camera with me and not worry too much about the technicalities, and of course it's fine at the short-to-medium focal lengths. Then I might pick up a 70-200 or 70-300 or 100-300 or even 100-400 to cater for when I want a long reach. But all that costs money. Decisions, decisions....

[marky_h]

Very nice shots Stewart :thumbs: My main walkaround lens this year has been the similar Tamron 18-200mm (now for sale (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=40172) :)), and although I was pretty pleased with it, I've recently upgraded to the Sigma 17-70 - and it is a step up in sharpness from the Tamron, I must say. You won't be disappointed if you upgrade.

[andyt70]

Very nice shots Stewart :thumbs: My main walkaround lens this year has been the similar Tamron 18-200mm (now for sale (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=40172) :)), .

ooh you got me all excited then, ..... till i noticed you dont have a :nikon: :(

[marky_h]

ooh you got me all excited then, ..... till i noticed you dont have a :nikon: :(

Sorry Andy. Maybe all is not lost, though - 400D's are very cheap at the moment :lol: