>> |
Anonymous
>>286048 Severely fucked post.
The tele zoom you say you have now is like a like a 320, which is pretty damn long.
Second, very few great pictures get taken with really long lenses; the extreme focal length makes them look flat and boring. ~200mm is all most people need for what they do, and that's pushing it. The exceptions are pictures of interesting stuff that shorter lenses won't work with; e.g. wildlife photography.
Ever heard the expression "zoom with your feet?" Yeah, that. Unless you like your portrait focal length on the long side of that type (e.g. a 105 or 135) the 55mm on the kit is all you'll need. Past that (and wider than the 18) increase in focal length range is subject to rapidly diminishing returns. Probably 90% of the world's great photos have been taken between 28 and 90mm equivalent. Certainly a majority of them.
If you really want IS, get the 55-200 or 70-300.
>How does the Sigma 24mm EF lens compare to the Canon 24mm EF lens?
Sigma is large, fast (large maximum aperture/ small F-number), and focuses very close, though it's not a true life-size macro lens. Canon is more reasonably sized, of a good, moderate aperture, and is basically your run of the mill 24mm all around. Go look on Flickr at samples and see which one you like.
>a macro lens are somewhere on the horizon.
Best cheap bet for macro is a 50/1.8 plus some extension tubes. If you can afford it, any of Canon's macro lenses are good. Or actually, pretty much anybody's macro lenses are good, but make sure they're a genuine macro (1:1 or larger magnification). I've never heard of a bad macro lens.
|