Hello,

I'm looking for a fast zoom lens, after discussing the topic on the forum i'm tempted to go for a 70-200mm (despite the price!). My main worry is the weight...as they seem very big but i still want to try them.

I've got 2 options:

- Tammy 70-200m f2.8: second hand good price offer from a forum member
- Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM version: second hand from my friend, so will get a good deal (hopefully), guessing about 100 quid more than the tammy. I might be able to test it this wkd.

They seem to have very similar caracteristics on paper. People discussing the Nikon versions seem to agree on the Sigma being better. + the Sigma has HSM which is very nice.

Please let me know if this has been discussed on the forum already (i'm sure it has).

THanks guys, these are the 3 obvious...

- 50-135 is probably lovely but too short and too expensive, even second hand they sell for 500+
- 50-150 is probably the one i'm after, it's a tiny bit too expensive, maybe if i could find one for 250 second hand that would do!?
- 70-200 is too expensive as well!

the 55-300 might be the best option, not sure how it compares to my 18-250 though.

seems canikon have some f4 lenses in that range, surely they must be a compromise, a f4 lens covering 50~250mm and fairly light as well?

basically i want the old sister of the 17-50mm which is light, amazing quality and well priced!

or am I asking too much?

The Tammy 17-50 is nice, looking for the same range of product/price/quality but to cover ideally 50ish-200ish fast, any suggestion? There was the sigma 50-150mm but a bit short and more expensive too, anything else?

42 x 18'' is the size of the frame or the picture?
that's 1:2.33 ratio, absolutely perfect! well done and thanks for insipiring me!

thx stefan, if 2 more people say it's nice i might put that one on my wall

Davex I will definitely do the same once i get my new flat (soon!)

are they canvas on the first pic?

second what size is that? looks like 1:2.5 i'm looking at panoramas, was going for either 1:2 or 1:3 but now i just want the same as yours, that's stunning - is it customed frame?

thx

Thanks guys, I was hoping to get a bit of criticism as did Gareth which was basically "if you do this your picture might look better", not get trashed like i did in the "your picture is crap but if you like it yeah well it's your problem then!" way.

So clearly the picture is not good enough to be hung on a wall, i guess i'll have to print one of my pictures from mexico with blue sky and turquoise water, they are rubbish but people seem to like blue skys better... anyway.

And to answer your question Paul yes i did take some more pics, here is another one from the evening before, at sunset




(might be too magenta for you too)

oooh you guys are harsh, well fair enough since i did ask to criticize.

I don't want to justify but i'll have to disagree:

1) I do think the light was in my favour, it was a dark grey cloud sky with some sun going through it at some times, which is why the foreground section and the very back are lit with the sun (when the rest is in the shadow)
2) when walking in a forest like this there never are opportunities to shoot the trees from the ground (feels like you always picturing the top of the front line, these trees are probably 15m tall), so i feel quite lucky i arrived to that "not so busy" place
3) although the tree at the front might be a bit messy (i admit), if i get rid of it the picture will become boring - mundane might become appropriate
4) also this fallen tree shows something happened (don't know what), which is underlined by the dead black trunk


Clearly don't feel like printing it anymore

Or maybe you're right, no one was there to see the beauty of this scene so i'm the only one who can appreciate it, which i find sad.

Anyway thanks for your comment.

But then I wouldn't have any foreground?
Thx for the suggestion though

Please someone comment!!