jann1033
<font color=darkcoral>Right now I'm an inch of nat
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2003
- Messages
- 11,553
which is the better (set of) lenses
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro i could use it along with the 28-80 f3.5.5 macro and 100-300mm i have now..the benefit being the wider angle plus it has a bigger aperture than what i have now but would it be enough for stuff like fireworks or other night time stuff...
or for about the same money the 18-125 sigma which i think is around f3.5-5.6 also and the 50mm f1.8 ( think that is sigma also?) ( that would be a little cheaper but once i add a circular polarizer etc not really) the benfit would be not having to change a lens very often but also it basically makes the others i have useless except the macro for the 28-80
in the past i have found the 28-80 some what limiting in the upperrange with a film camera but the 70 would 'seem" farther (? or since it's for digital does that cancel that crop factor out) and i have 100-300 for that anyway. I'd still have the macro with the one i have now......
but since i didn't like changing lens the 17-70 wouldn't help me much there would it?.mostly the 28-80/100-300 was a pain cause we like to go to the Mt's and the 80 didn't have enough zoom but the 100 awful for anything in the closer range... not sure how that would work out in actual use with the 1.6 business.
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro i could use it along with the 28-80 f3.5.5 macro and 100-300mm i have now..the benefit being the wider angle plus it has a bigger aperture than what i have now but would it be enough for stuff like fireworks or other night time stuff...
or for about the same money the 18-125 sigma which i think is around f3.5-5.6 also and the 50mm f1.8 ( think that is sigma also?) ( that would be a little cheaper but once i add a circular polarizer etc not really) the benfit would be not having to change a lens very often but also it basically makes the others i have useless except the macro for the 28-80
in the past i have found the 28-80 some what limiting in the upperrange with a film camera but the 70 would 'seem" farther (? or since it's for digital does that cancel that crop factor out) and i have 100-300 for that anyway. I'd still have the macro with the one i have now......
but since i didn't like changing lens the 17-70 wouldn't help me much there would it?.mostly the 28-80/100-300 was a pain cause we like to go to the Mt's and the 80 didn't have enough zoom but the 100 awful for anything in the closer range... not sure how that would work out in actual use with the 1.6 business.