JIP
No longer a newbie, moving up!
I think 1/4 century with 10 years of professional photography is enough but it really doesn't matter, more experience doesn't always mean more knowledge. I agree with your statement on the image quality of the 18-200 and was really wondering why you would suggest an inferior lens to someone. It is not really fast enough to get great concert images and not really all that sharp from the reviews I have read (I posted links to a couple in one of the many previous dicussions of this lens). I was merely trying to point out the criteria this person gave for a lens (fast long cheap small) was impossible to achieve. If you want a fast lens it will have to have big glass and mutiple elements and it will consequently be more expensive, long fast lenses will be large (obviously) to hold the large glass there's just no way around it. oh yeah and the thank you part of my comment you quoted was thanking fmw for an answer I agreed with. And still I wonder why it is so hard/inconvenient to change lenses if that is the case there are plenty of quality p/s cameras out there where you never have to worry about changing your lens. Why buy a DSLR if you don't want to change lenses.fmw said:Not by me. I have never even seen one, let alone tested one. I was providing some generic information related to lens design that the OP should consider. It was not lens specific but was accurate. After you have completed about 1/2 century of photography, you may use any attitude you like with me. In the meantime comment on what I say, not on what you think I say. It reflects poorly on you, not on me.