AirBrontosaurus
3rd of October 2005 (Mon), 22:09
OK, I've finally decided. I have a Canon 300d,and the kit lens just isn't enough for me. If I buy another lens (which I really want to) I think it has to be a Tele-Macro. I love Macro, but don't have the money to shell out for a decent lens and then not be able to use it for anything but macro. I want the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG macro because in all the reviews I read it seems to be the best of its kind. I can't spend more than $250, and the only lense that seems to have a semi-decent rating is the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG macro. I figure I can use it as a telephoto for vacations and stuff, and put some Kenko extension tubes on it for good macro.
MY QUESTION!!!:
Am I missing anything? Does this lens just plain blow at macro? Is it the worst lens ever? Would a homeless man be reluctant to accept it as a gift? Will I get decent macro with it + extension tubes (by "decent" I mean like the pictures Bald Eagle takes. I know he has a tele-macro lens as well) (Note that I never ever said that I could take pictures as good as Bald Eagle... I just want to know that, had he been given the lens, he could take good pictures with it). I don't mean that it takes perfect pictures every time; I simply mean is it possible under ideal conditions to get a good macro shot? Also, is there any tele-macro lens that is geared more toward the macro side? Also, is there ANYTHING else I should know. I see a lot of people bashing this lens, but they all have 12303213mm Canon Super Duper Awesome Amazing Uranium-Coated L-Series lenses with a max F-stop of -93490432 (it actually defies conventional physics and creates light from nothing) and costs $54 billion. I know this lens isn't on par with lenses that cost 10x as much. What I want to know is, for an ultra-amature like me, is it worth the money? Will it take good pictures, or, after looking at my first shots, will it appear that a dog has urinated on my monitor in place of the picture?
FOR COMPARISON:
How sharp/contrasty/good will this be compared to the kit lens?
Thanks for anyone who has the kind of time to read all of this.
-Chris
MY QUESTION!!!:
Am I missing anything? Does this lens just plain blow at macro? Is it the worst lens ever? Would a homeless man be reluctant to accept it as a gift? Will I get decent macro with it + extension tubes (by "decent" I mean like the pictures Bald Eagle takes. I know he has a tele-macro lens as well) (Note that I never ever said that I could take pictures as good as Bald Eagle... I just want to know that, had he been given the lens, he could take good pictures with it). I don't mean that it takes perfect pictures every time; I simply mean is it possible under ideal conditions to get a good macro shot? Also, is there any tele-macro lens that is geared more toward the macro side? Also, is there ANYTHING else I should know. I see a lot of people bashing this lens, but they all have 12303213mm Canon Super Duper Awesome Amazing Uranium-Coated L-Series lenses with a max F-stop of -93490432 (it actually defies conventional physics and creates light from nothing) and costs $54 billion. I know this lens isn't on par with lenses that cost 10x as much. What I want to know is, for an ultra-amature like me, is it worth the money? Will it take good pictures, or, after looking at my first shots, will it appear that a dog has urinated on my monitor in place of the picture?
FOR COMPARISON:
How sharp/contrasty/good will this be compared to the kit lens?
Thanks for anyone who has the kind of time to read all of this.
-Chris