|
As Oldboy says you're not going to get a lens which covers everything you want, and if you want to shoot wildlife then I'm afraid birds can require the most expensive of all the lenses produced. The 50 - 500mm will get you the reach at an affordable price, but has a slow f/6.3 aperture at the long end, which does mean you need decent light.
I disagree that the Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 isn't highly regarded by users Photozone says: As such it is a viable alternative to the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED (or the Canon EF 70-200m f/2.8 USM L) and on Fredmiranda it scored a healthy 9.1, however there is a caveat the scores are for the older version of the lens, and since the 'macro' incarnation it's not quite as good, the new scores a much more lowly 7.8 so if you do decide this lens is for you make sure you buy the right one.
The cheapest way to get to 600mm and still maintain auto focus is to buy a Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4 & a 2x teleconverter, but it's still going to cost around £2500
With landscape I like to use 70mm and stitch several shots together so a 70 - 200mm lens would allow this if you are prepared for a work around in software, you will of course also need a tripod.
For Macro it is possible to buy Macro filters which screw on the end of the lens and can give reasonable results, the Sigma 70 -200mm has a 77mm thread - more expensive, but that is the standard size of most of Canons L grade lenses so they will always be of use as & when your photography develops.
|