>> |
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.
|