File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
OK /p/, I need a new lens for my camera, one that can take pictures in low light, and very close up of things anywhere from insects to large cars. I would like to be able to be 1-3 feet away from a car and be able to get the whole thing in the image. As well as taking shots of the interior of the car (ie. the whole dashboard from the backseat).

Sigma 18mm - 50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro Autofocus Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras
or
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF AutoFocus Standard Zoom Lens with Hood for Canon EOS Cameras

I am tending to think that the 18mm would be better suited for taking pictures of cars from close up and getting the whole vehicle in the shot than the 24mm would be, no? Also, my uncle makes his living through photography, and hes telling me that on the top end, the 50mm isn't enough. Why would I need a lens to go as high as 70mm? Wouldn't it be better to get the 18-50 lens, and save for a second camera so I don't have to switch lenses when I need a larger focal length? (I already have a 28-135mm)

After writing this, I think that ultimately no matter what, I am gonna have to take a drive into the city and check them out at B&H. But still... what do you guys think?

Thanks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
both of these suck ass, get the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
>> Anonymous
>>226460
you must be stupid... first of all, i have a canon, not a nikon (and i am not getting an adaptor); and second, that is too much money.

I would like to get a Canon EF 16 - 35mm f/2.8L II, but that is definitely way too much for me. From what I hear, a good sigma is just as good as an L series lens when it comes to image quality. Sigmas are just not as good about how well they are sealed against getting dust inside them.
>> Anonymous
>>226465From what I hear, a good sigma is just as good as an L series lens when it comes to image quality

you heard fucking wrong
>> Anonymous
>>226466
point me in the right direction of some reviews, cause i haven't been able to find any good ones
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The Sigma 24-70 against the Canon 24-70 at 50mm.

The Sigma is stopped down one full stop at f/4.0 and the Canon is wide open at 2.8.

The Canon is clearly better. Nikon and Canon do not price these bad boys at 4 times the price of the Sigma for the lulz.

Charts aside, what the Sigma will be lacking is contrast and general softness unless stopped down. That and the hit and miss focus accuracy.

Nothing wrong with Sigma, everyone likes the 30mm and 50mm, but their zooms can be disappointing sometimes.

And as for your choices, I'd take the Tamron 17-50 before the Sigma 18-50.

I'd also take the Tamron 28-75 before the Sigma 24-70.

And it's not like I even like Tamron, fuck those guys.
>> Anonymous
>>226469

Oops, forgot to mention, Canon on the left, Sigma on the right. If that wasn't obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>226469
thank you. also, what is the source of your screenshot?
>> Anonymous
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
>> Anonymous
>>226470
heh, yeah, took me a few seconds to figure out which was which.
>> Anonymous
>>226473
awesome. thank you very much.
>> Anonymous
Don't worry about labels, but when it comes to technical image quality it's extremely unlikely a Sigma will top a Canon L. Subjective image quality (what matters) is, well, subjective. Make your own call there after looking at a crapload of sample shots.

As for your question: these "macro" lenses aren't real macros. They focus closer than normal lenses, but they're not macros.

Your best bet is to get two lenses, one for your main/carshooting one and one for macro. Here are some suggestions:

For the main one, get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 if you insist on a zoom.
If you don't (don't), get a Sigma 20/1.8 or a Canon 20/2.8. The Sigma is huge, the Canon is slow. Take your pick. Later on, you can pick up a cheap 28 or 35mm as your normal for when you don't want it so wide.

Regardless of what you get above, also get a 50/1.8. It's $80, and a great and useful medium telephoto, for portraits, etc.

For macro, either:

1) Look into dedicated macro lenses.
2) Reverse the aforementioned 50/1.8. (Google "lens reversing.)
3) Buy a cheap little point and shoot with a good macro mode. This is actually a good option, though not as good as the other two. You can also use it when you don't want to/can't use your DSLR.
>> Anonymous
Oh, and no, most photographers don't need more than a 50mm on a 1.6x crop. If you do, you have that 135mm for you, big tele.