Sharpest, cheapest and fastest long zoom?

See, when you posted this:

"What zoom lens (with any ranges between 50 and 250) is the very sharp, very cheap (under £40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify."

I thought you actually meant it. Especially by putting the statement (in bold) at the end.

If you want suggestions that don't quite fit, or you are willing to compromise, then why state that it has to be all three.

By saying "no such lens exists" you're query has been answered (funny considering the "can't read" jibe). For all we knew, if we had started suggesting lenses which didn't meet your strict criteria, then it would have been met with a volley of "that's not what I asked for!" (as does happen on occasion).[/quote]I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed £200.

To be honest, I'm not making jibes, I'm just not one to be walked over by people who want to use me as a sacasm whipping boy - the 10-600mm doesn't even fit the discussion (the range is 50-200!!! Read it again).

Lastly (for now I guess until the next smart remark comes my way and needs putting straight!), a good car dealership would say "sorry, we don't have that...but let me show you this". If you say that they would be all "You can't have that. That doesn't exit. Nowhere will have it" and a little sarcasm/intelligence bashing to go along with it, I don't think that business would last very long selling any cars.

The idea is to give someone what they're looking for, and if, and ONLY if that can't be done YOU offer various combos/compromises/solutions, not the buyer. From all accounts its clear that the person wants the best of all worlds, but they don't understand how these worlds work in conjunction. Are you going to leae them ignorant and send them on their way, or are you going to offer a solution?

Apologies to everyone else. If I was able to PM, I wouldn't be posting this here (new memeber;not allowed).

Robbie, if you want to send me you email then I'm more than happy to keep this up. Mine is [email protected] Let's see if you want to argue with me, or are you merely trying to show off to everyone how "correct" your answer is.

See, when you posted this:

"What zoom lens (with any ranges between 50 and 250) is the very sharp, very cheap (under £40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify."

I thought you actually meant it. Especially by putting the statement (in bold) at the end.

If you want suggestions that don't quite fit, or you are willing to compromise, then why state that it has to be all three.

By saying "no such lens exists" you're query has been answered (funny considering the "can't read" jibe). For all we knew, if we had started suggesting lenses which didn't meet your strict criteria, then it would have been met with a volley of "that's not what I asked for!" (as does happen on occasion).[/quote]I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed £200.

To be honest, I'm not making jibes, I'm just not one to be walked over by people who want to use me as a sacasm whipping boy - the 10-600mm doesn't even fit the discussion (the range is 50-200!!! Read it again).

Lastly (for now I guess until the next smart remark comes my way and needs putting straight!), a good car dealership would say "sorry, we don't have that...but let me show you this". If you say that they would be all "You can't have that. That doesn't exit. Nowhere will have it" and a little sarcasm/intelligence bashing to go along with it, I don't think that business would last very long selling any cars.

The idea is to give someone what they're looking for, and if, and ONLY if that can't be done YOU offer various combos/compromises/solutions, not the buyer. From all accounts its clear that the person wants the best of all worlds, but they don't understand how these worlds work in conjunction. Are you going to leae them ignorant and send them on their way, or are you going to offer a solution?[/quote]3 points:

1. The sarcasm only came about after provocation, if you're willing to give out insults, expect them back. I should have just caveated it with "no offence intended" though.
2. I might be wrong, but last time I checked a 10-600mm just about covers the range you asked for. I can double check if you like though.
3. Re: point 2, I though you were allowing compromise, not that additional focal range is really a compromise. Why so hard and fast with the criteria all of a sudden?

PM sent.

What is your problem??????????????????????????????

I should have know from the time you had a Tropical Thunder edited signature!

Either way, like I said. There is no way you're going to beat me with that sarcasm/insult stick you weild so fiercely.

NO-ONE INSULTED YOU!!!

I said, leaving "Can't be done" type post is not helpful, don't take offence, please don't do it. Why barage me with random jibes?

I can tell you're in it to win it (although you've lossed severaltimes over) because you post like a debater - ie, never answering my comments, but always making new ones or trying to re-enforce your previous.

Please, show some valour and give up.

FYI - I never mention focal length as a compromise, also, the 10-600mm (foolish edition) may cover the range, but, its not what I asked for.

Again, just give it up!

Guys - walk away from it please

I sent a PM, I thought you didn't want to discuss this on the board. I was led to believe that is just "showing off".

its my day off today, i woke up a bit groggy after a lie in, this thread perked me right up

Handbags at dawn?

At last I finally have a smile on instead of frowning for "X" minutes.

Back to the lenses...if anyone is still interested, that is.

Not wanting to get involved in the bitch slapping, i want to add my comment

to be honest i do feel robbie has a point in his defence, you did say it has to be very sharp very cheap (under £40) and very fast wide open, and has to be all 3 to qaulify, this does read to me that thats the criteria and anything else will not do, so when robbie says it does not exist i think he was right in saying so.

However.

You later said
I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed £200, which in a way contradicts what you said originally.

I think everyone who reads this post now knows not to just say the first thing that pops into mind so how about.........

Put the slanging match aside, shake and make up and revise what your requirments are.

EG: I'm after a lens covering approx 50-250mm which is as fast as poss wide open, as sharp as can be for as cheap as poss, i'd like to spend around £40 but if it has to be more so be it, any suggestions greatly appritiated.

And on keeping on topic.

I do like the tamron 70-300 too, good lens for under £100 i paid £90 brand new.
The 50-200mm kit lens is also a pretty good lens to be honest, can be picked up relitively cheap.

The WR version of the 55-200 was available for £109 recently. I think it was at SRS.

i kept toying with the idea of upgrading mine to the wr lenses but no point really my cameras are not weather sealed so defeats the object, i think the optics are the same but you have the auto focus override on the wr lens to fine tune manually.

Was thinking of doing the same and came to the same conclusion.

Maybe when I have a K-7 (or whatever replaces it)...