newchicago |
08-15-2008 7:16 AM |
Background: I am a complete newbie to SLRs. I have recently seen how nice pictures turn out with a 'decent' SLR, so I made the plunge and bought this... <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11290508&cm_mmc=BCEmail_33 0-_-FOCUS-_-3-_-CanonRebel" target="_blank">http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11290508&cm_mmc=BCEmail_33 0-_-FOCUS-_-3-_-CanonRebel</a> <BR> <BR>That part is already done (so there is no point in telling me what a mistake I've made!). <BR>I have a friend who has a Sigma 28-300 lens that seems to be what I'd like (for taking pictures of wakeboarding from the boat, kids sporting events, etc). It's a little under $300. No image stabilization, however. <BR>There is a Canon 55-250 lens for $269 with IS... <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5327/lens-test-canon-55-250mm-f4-56-ef-s-is.html" target="_blank">http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5327/lens-test-canon-55-250mm-f4-56-ef-s-is.html</a> <BR> <BR>So, I guess the main questions is: how important do you feel IS is for a rank amateur? Would the extra range of the Sigma be a better idea than the Canon with the IS? <BR> <BR>I very much appreciate any input you might have! <BR> <BR>(Message edited by newchicago on August 15, 2008)
|