No such lens exists unfortunately.However the new Tamron 18-250 has raised the bar for superzooms according to the reviews.I would point out though that one of the main reasons to buy a DSLR is the facility to change lenses.Having said that a superzoom is a good place to start whilst you discover your shooting style and can then decide on your future specialist lens purchases.PJT..
"No such lens exists unfortunately....".
Please, look at:SIGMA AF 18-200mm OS DC f/3,5 6,3 (Can).
I saw it in many sites and I've checked it on http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp.
At f/6.3, that won't be good for low-light action at a distance like football under lights..
At 18mm, it's not exactly an ultrawide..
At 250mm, it's still going to be a bit short for birds and other wildlife..
It's also not particularly remarkable at close-focusing, meaning that it won't replace a dedicated macro lens...
...yes, I know what you mean. .
But I have take a decision... I have to choose!.
I've a (in my opinion) very good compact camera (kodak z1275 12mpx) and I would make a farward step buying a better camera..
I was looking at Fuji s100fs for is good zoom but I don't like it's awful purple fringing... but she costs about 500 euro..
So I've thought to spend a little bit more to buy a nice dslr..
My intention is starting with a Canon eos 450d and this 18-200 limited lens, then ahead.... buying one wider...longer.. etc.etc...
The question is:Do I risk to buy anything that works worse than my sweety Kodak?!.
The question is:.
Do I risk to buy anything that works worse than my sweety Kodak?! (z1275)>>.
Do you risk something that works worse than your Kodak? "Works" is a word with multiple meanings. Yes a new camera may well be worse (MUCH worse) in the sense of the convenience factor of a smaller camera compared to a very much larger one. In your case: 161g increasing to around 1kg or more with a big lens; and then there is the learning curve for a new camera..
A DSLR will give you the potential to get better quality results; whether or not you realise that potential to the full will be entirely up to you and how you choose to make use of the camera, and also if you can afford to put good lenses on it. Then there is Live View: to be really useful it needs to be implemented on a flip out LCD (see Sony Alpha350)..
Rationalize your situation: You NEED a DSLR only if you want to publish your work in print or develop your photography in a serious manner without a barrier in the way. With a high level of skill, the DSLR can bring consistency to your results wheras the Fuji will be less consistent in difficult conditions. The reason for this is that the sensor on the Fuji is much smaller than on the DSLR causing issues with higher ISOs. For example I like to shoot with the Fuji 9100 at ISO 80 or 100 and I would use RAW for important shots in difficult conditions..
If you are interested, take a look at my "Back to the Bridge Camera" link below for a discussion of a bridge camera (the Fuji 9100) in use alongside a DSLR. I use a bridge camera, a DSLR AND a little Canon s400. Tellingly, some of my best shots have been taken on that little Canon pocket camera! Why? Because it fits in my pocket and seldom gets an exposure wrong. A big camera that is left at home on the shelf because it does not offer an all-in-one solution is not unusual.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..