A $1,699 Gift For Me

[Easy_Target]

$1699? with windows vista?

You overpaid. :X

They should be paying you to use vista, not the other way around.

 

[toofpaste]

which one you thinking of - a Nikon or a sigma?




or you could be evil and look a tamron

Def. sigma 70-300

 

[toofpaste]

$1699? with windows vista?

You overpaid. :X

They should be paying you to use vista, not the other way around.

Not the first to bug me about that..lol

i'll be switchin over pretty seen though

 

[Overread]

Def. sigma 70-300

Sigma 70-300mm macro?
Not a good choice for pure macro - its not a real macro lens . It will get close up shots and flower photos are where this lens really shines, but won't let you get close enough for those highly detailed insect shots - plus its a tripod lens - meaning its not very good handheld - least I have never found handheld results to be consistantly good enough for me.

Better would be to look at the macro prime lenses - those are proper macro.
sigma do a good range - 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro with the latter two also able to work with their set of teleconverters - which can give great background blur results:
example with the 180mm
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm

Canon and nikon (not sure which system you are on) also do a good range of macro lenses (micro for nikon which makes me think you are canon). A point about the canon 100mm (the most used macro lens for canon cameras) is that whilst it is cheaper then the sigma 150mm it comes with neither lens hood or tripod bracket - whilst the sigma does. The braket is not essentail, but the lens hood is very important

 

[clarinetJWD]

$1699? with windows vista?

You overpaid. :X

They should be paying you to use vista, not the other way around.

Not another comment like this...can we stop now?

 

[toofpaste]

Sigma 70-300mm macro?
Not a good choice for pure macro - its not a real macro lens . It will get close up shots and flower photos are where this lens really shines, but won't let you get close enough for those highly detailed insect shots - plus its a tripod lens - meaning its not very good handheld - least I have never found handheld results to be consistantly good enough for me.

Better would be to look at the macro prime lenses - those are proper macro.
sigma do a good range - 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro with the latter two also able to work with their set of teleconverters - which can give great background blur results:
example with the 180mm
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm

Canon and nikon (not sure which system you are on) also do a good range of macro lenses (micro for nikon which makes me think you are canon). A point about the canon 100mm (the most used macro lens for canon cameras) is that whilst it is cheaper then the sigma 150mm it comes with neither lens hood or tripod bracket - whilst the sigma does. The braket is not essentail, but the lens hood is very important

Alright well, I'm not going to be doing so much of insects as I am of close ups on people and objects. I just hate to be that close to them with 55m. So having that in mind, what do you suggest. I have a nikon d40

 

[Overread]

I would look for a 100mm macro. That will work well as a close up for portate work on people and also do well with macro work on objects (and the odd bug).
A longer focal length -150-180mm would let you work further away from the insects, but its not a very big margin really (cms) and they can be a little long for most portrate work.
One other thing to look for is a focusing rail - macro work tends to be done (though not always) on tripods - that helps get stable results - yet with a prime you cannot move the depth of field by zooming the lens in and out (you have a very small depth of field with macro work in general). The focusing rail lets you move the camera back and forth - rather than your legs. Good for macro work as you don't have to move the whole tripod.

 

[toofpaste]

Overread....you're awesome. I'll take every word you said into consideration when I buy my lens. I appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[Overread]

One thing I forgot to mention - a 150 or 180mm macro is still a normal 150 or 180mm lens - so they make a good medium range lens. The only downside is that they do tend to autofocus a little slower than regular non macro lenses at these ranges - partly because the focusing ring has more turns on it so it can hunt for focus for far longer, and in addition to that macro photos don't need fast auto focusing as a prime request/

 

[toofpaste]

Aha....I see. Well not that bad of a downside to have a macro and medium range