Rethinking my first purchase to be. I encountered a hummingbird the other day, my 18-55 was not nearly long enough to get me even a decent focus on him. That said, I'm gonna put-off the 60mm Macro for favor of an xx-200mm of some sort. Could I get some input on which is what I would be most happy with? I've read some good things about a Quantaray 18-200. Any help would be great!!

I found 200mm a little short for birds so I got a Tamron 28-300 witch does a really good job for me. I also use a 2x converter at times. That means a tripod is needed.

What kind of camera do you have? I'm sure i've read that somewhere, but can't remember now.

Rebel XTi/400D

As a nikon shooter i know little about canon's lens line up so its hard for me to give you specific lenses to look at. For a telephoto i have a 70-200 2.8 vr, and im happy i went that way. Canon i believe makes a similar one. 70-200 2.8 IS i believe. At one point i almost bought a 70-300 4-5.6 and im glad i saved the money and eventually bought the faster glass. I enjoy taking pictures of sports so a slower lens would have held me back there. Even with the 2.8 sometimes i can't get the speed i want. Also with the longer focal length handholding becomes more of a problem so the faster glass is nice. The big problem with the fast lens, as im sure you can see, is they are a good deal more expensive. You need to figure out where and what you will be using it for. I would probably say if you are thinking most of the time you will be outside with it, perhaps taking pictures of birds or other wild life something like a 70-300 might be better. That way you get the extra reach and outside you likely don't need that extra couple of stops.

The lenses that go wider than 70 would be a nice option as well since you could avoid changing lenses as often, but i can't be much help there because i don't know anything about the options out there for canon.

A nice compromise might be sigma's 100-300/4. It's not as fast as a 2.8, but it's faster than a70-300 4 - 5.6. Goes for around $1100 new, +/- $200 less for a used one in top shape.

$1100 is a bit out of my range right now. I fiddled with a Quantaray 18-200mm w/OS in a Ritz Camera. Does anyone know much about their stuff? The clerk said Sigma makes those lenses.

To be honest with you i can't say i remember hearing that they make lenses. So that might worry me a bit. But it might also just be that they don't sell them in the stores I'm familiar with here in Calgary. It might also be that I'm ignorant, and they could be great.

If what the clerk said is true, and sigma does make them i wonder why they don't sell them under their own name. In my mind sigma is building a pretty sold name for itself, so the reason that pops into my mind that they might make it cheaper and sell it under a different name so that they don't tarnish their brand with lower quality glass.

I want to be hesitant saying that its not the best lens without ever reading anything about it or seeing one for myself, but it seems to inexpensive for what it is. The equivalent ranged nikon lens is $750 compared to $360 for the one in question. Sure nikon brands like nikon and canon price their lenses higher than third party companies like sigma and what not, but that is a pretty drastic difference for you not to be losing some quality.

I'd suggest searching for some reviews on the lens, and see what they say about it.

the quantaray i looked at was $529

ahh, my mistake, i believe i was looking at one that as not stabilized. That would make it considerably cheaper. I was also thinking about it a bit after i posted last and i don't think i believe what i said about sigma making it anymore. It seems to me that quantary does make other things, are probably not made by sigma, so my theory wouldn't make much sense. I can't think of a reason why sigma would want to jump in there like the clerk said they did though.

What about the tamron 28-200? I really want a good walk-around to replace the 18-55, cus that one is a bit short.