The Sigma 10-20 is not a fish eye lens.

For super wide rectilinear, your choices are basically the Sigma 10-20, which is good providing you get a good copy, and the Pentax 12-24.

The Pentax is much more expensive, and 10 is a lot wider than 12. So in value for money, if not absolute quality, terms, the Sigma scores higher.

Could you say a bit more about your experience with this device for cleaning sensors? I've got some specks that won't shift with the rocket blower, so I think I need to go to the next level

My apologies for misunderstanding you - it was I that started the confusion by guessing wrongly what you meant.

If you don't like the depth of field from the 18-55, I'm now guessing that what you're really looking for is a shallow depth of field.

This may be 'good' if your objective is to emphasise the point of focus by having everything at a different distance blurred. But it's 'bad' if you're trying to get the whole of something in focus, a face for instance. So perhaps you'll agree that it's just as easy to not say what you mean, as it is for someone to misconstrue what you say.

Anyway, if that is your intention, then Iceblinker's probably right with his list, with the possible exception of the 28mm, with which you'll have to be very close to get this effect to any great extent.

Out of them all, the FA 50mm F1.4 is probably the best for achieving a very shallow DoF: it's long enough not to have to get up too close, and it's fast enough to have an extremely shallow depth of field at F1.4 or F1.7.

However, you did also say that you wanted a zoom lens. Unless you pay an enormous amount of money, they do tend to be slower (that is, a smaller maximum aperture, or higher F-number wide open). Which means that you'll need longer focal lengths to get the shallow DoF effects.

Maybe you could be a bit more specific about exactly what you want to achieve, what sort of pictures you're thinking of taking, and how much you were thinking of spending.

You won't go wrong with the FA 50 1.4, though, it has a fantastic reputation for quality, and for around £150, it's very reasonably priced.

Depth of field has a specific meaning that refers to the range of camera-to-subject distances over which the picture appears sharp.

I suspect you don't mean this, and mean zoom range instead. Certainly the 18-55 mm zoom range of the kit lens isn't huge.

If I've read you right, I suspect you might get on very well with the Pentax 18-250 superzoom, which is an excellent lens considering its enormous zoom range.

Many here rate SRS Microsystems very highly, so assuming you're in the UK, this would be an ideal place to buy it.

No one given you one recently, then, George?

There is no acrimony towards anyone in this thread as far as I can see.

I do, however, agree that we should recognise that JR probably finds himself needing to move more tactfully than many of us feel bound to.

I would be very surprised indeed if he doesn't have the ability to be able to log in invisibly.

It's a feature of most forum applications, although I'd concede that one can't draw too many inferences from that.

The trouble is, there is no 'current feeling' as such, that can be summarised in a few brief notes. The 'current feeling' varies from 'a bit ill-at-ease' with the new site, to 'extremely frustrated', depending on what one is trying to achieve.

The other problem is that we can only see our own problem reports. So we don't know what's been reported and what hasn't.

And everyone will have a slightly different idea of what's important.

Personally, I think the list of problems should be public, so that we know what everyone is reporting. [Edit:] And what they are and aren't actioning.

Then we won't

a) report something for the millionth time because we don't know that everyone else has already reported it, and

b) fail to report something because we assume someone else has.

This would be far preferable to the 'divide and exhaust' policy currently in force, since there would be fewer duplicate reports for the team to follow up, answer and close.

And, dare I say it, much better investigation of issues - since everyone's experience can be brought to bear. I think as a community we're pretty good system testers, actually - it's just that the test results don't seem to be too welcome sometimes.

I much prefer the first.

I do agree with you, Lilly. There's a je ne sais quoi that's been lost somehow.

I wonder if the powers that be read their own forum. If they do, they'd realise that Lilly is a) one of our best photographers, and b) not at all like the (cough) cantankerous argumentative types that have had the temerity to express views about the forum in recent times.

So if they ought to listen to anyone, it's to her.

That aside,

There's nothing stopping us from boycotting the new competition area, and continuing the way we were. All we need is a thread as we had before, and people to post pictures in it.

I'd be up for it. Hell, I'd probably even remember to submit some photos, no matter how little chance they had of winning

Use Firefox and AdBlock. The only one I have to look at is in the top right corner.
You can - Community | Members online
I've taken this up with them on several occasions. They don't think it's worth having it so that you don't get the message if you edit before there are any subsequent posts. Their argument is that you should be able to get rid of typos with the preview facility.