18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS

it isn't an Canon EF right? btw was wondering how long is the actual lens.

by the time u know, u get SAL (suddenly acquired Lens)

Sweet picture man ..... love the colours in it.

which camera you're using danny?

Very nice!

I have a Pentax K10D, so my lens recommendations wouldn't be much use. I use a Pentax 28-105 as my general carry around lens, and have a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro for macro work and if I need some extra reach. Good think about Pentax is you can use all the old lenses, so I have a selection of nice fast manual prime lenses as well for family shots and things like that.

forgot about recommendations... I'd recommend the Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10511
equivalent to a 28-135mm lens. a great all around lens. better focusing distance of 1.15ft, comes with image stabilizer, has a decent enough wide angle and probably a lot cheaper.

I'm not very familiar with canon lenses but I would actually recommend to anyone getting a 18-200mm lens for their dslr. Simply because you don't have to switch lenses anymore as you could lose a kodak moment the time you change your lens. And you don't have to carry extra lenses anymore since it'll be everything you'll need. Downside is that it's pretty heavy and bulky and the images are not quite as sharp in some 18-200mm. Go for it unless you're really picky down to every pixel, which most people wouldn't notice anyway.

I have the same lens. I'm a little bit disappointed about it : the AF have sometime some troubles to find the spot, then, when you do a nice photo and take your time to do it, it's ok, but when you have to do some fast shoots, most of the time, the camera use a wrong AF spot (like 90% the background...)
And the OS on and off doesn't change a lot for me...
But as a daily lense, it's ok. Not the best, not the worst :)

Wow, nice shot of the town that is. Don't know anything about lenses and cameras, but I know it's an expensive hobby to have. Me dad is still on old skool film-roll cameras though ^^

There is one Tamron going from 18-250 mm which is purportedly decent. I do not know what mounts for, though (I do know they have it for Pentax at least).

I've been thinking for many months of buying my first dslr, but I just can't seem to able to make up my mind. Probably gonna get Canon EOS Kiss F (1000D/Rebel XS) when in Japan next month, costs less there. The lens coming with the kit is just a basic lens, EF-S18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS, but I think it's enough for a beginner like me.

Then again, if I end up spending too much on figures and erogee, might have to skip the camera and buy it next year.

Yesterday I ordered the Canon EOS 450D, it should be here today.

I like the way that lens catches light. Gives a nice ambient glow. I can't seem to get the EXIF tag from that image - do you happen to remember what shutter speed/aperture/ISO you were using?

The way it caught the light makes the picture subtle yet vibrant, or at least I find.

I use a 18-55EFs and a 28-135 myself.

I use the Sony Alpha 100 and going to get the SAL-24105 - 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 which was recommended to me by a photography magazine technician

I'm an Olympus man myself. I like the 4/3rds system which allows for smaller (and lighter) lenses. Also, Olympus has image stabilization built into the camera instead of the lens like Canon does.

The only real downside used to be noise when using higher ISOs (like ISO 1600) but the E510, 520, and E3 seem to have done a very good job of overcoming that.

I've got this lenses since last year. I'm really happy with them. Great zoom and nice quality. With this, I only need to carry on lens when I go on a trip, and I don't need to bother changing them, just SHOT SHOT SHOT ;)

I've taken 5000 photos on my last trip to japan using this lens. In my camera, the AF works really well, also when tracking moving targets, anyways, I can set the AF point in case the camera choses a wrong one. Stabilizer is nice, a great adittion but you better use a tripod (gonna buy one soon).

The only downside I found is that on some situations with bad light, the fotos result a bit darker, but that is in part a fault of my Canon 400D and easyly solved shooting in manual+raw.

arrghh...many canon users here.... ^^;;

any nikon users? me using nikon D40 with 2 lens ^^;; 18-55mm and 55-200mm LOL

getting a 18-200 would be a very nice idea, but it seems my budget is on its limit now...must save money.....

if u had 18-55mm and 55-200, would u sell them and get the 18-200?

IMO a 18-200mm with f/3.5-6.3 Is a great overall lens for everyday use, however I should mention a few things to you Danny: First we have the same camera, I don't know if you know this but because our cameras don't have 35mm sensors (we have 22.2mm) you have to multiply those focal lengths by a factor of 1.6x so you lens becomes a 29-320mm which is still within limits of everyday use. Also at 320mm zoom and f/6.3 you WILL need a tripod guaranteed unless you have an arm that is welded together. Personally for the pictures you take and what you are planning to take I would recommend the Canon 24-105mm f/4L (IS) but that lens is around $1000 USD so It is probably out of your budget. Sorry if I sounded a bit nerdy lol

In the 17-85mm the good point is the IS.

Is hard the choice of the lens, but U must think in the L series =)

There is a telephoto 70-200 f4 L (canon). Isn't the best telephoto, but isn't the most expensive.

IMO, f/6.3 at 200mm is way too slow to be useful. You either need a monopod, tripod which in turn defeats the idea of travelling light. I personally use the 24-70 f/2.8 L as a general lens. Cheap lenses are also far too flimsy. In the olden days, lenses used to be lumps of metal and glass.

Danny, if you want a telezoom...go for one of these:

70-200mm f/4.0 L or if your budget allows it, get the IS version (image stabilizer). It's worth the investment if you want to experiment with photography.

Is there such lense with that range for Sony alpha?
currently im eying for one as its wasy for travelling, and might also consider wide lens.
But im a total noob where recently i got conned on PL filter ;__;

I recommend any 'official' lenses, they lose less value over the years and are better quality overall. Try to get the IS one (Image Stabilisation), it will lessen the headache of finding out all your images are blurry when you check them on your computer ^^;;

A very good resource for cameras and lenses in general can be found here -> http://www.kenrockwell.com/ - he uses mostly Nikon but does use Canon as well

Everyone, this is a Sigma lens and not brand specific. So on any APC-C size sensor camera, you should get the same results. Here are the specs. from the Sigma site: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6

I have the same concern as bakkenrammer about this lens. Since you will be using it in potentially low light areas, the lens is too slow. The widest maximum aperture at telephoto is small so this makes it a "slow" lens. Being slow it's not great for low light or action.

Sorry no recommendations right now. I have been looking at lenses too, but mostly L series. ^^; I need to shop for something a little more in my budget. As I keep telling myself, don't forget your investment is in the glass. Camera bodies come and go as technology changes, but good glass will last.

I'll drop you a line if I find anything interesting...

Thanks all for the great advice. I guess with many lenses its a case of "you wont know until you try it yourself" as I see both good and negative opinions of this lens.
I wish there was a place that rented them ^^;

24 - 105 F4L makes a good event lens

wooooaaa nice pix (right click Set As Background) ^^