Hello ladies and gents.
A newbie here seeking for some opinion ...
Actually I was eyeing for a lens with 70-300mm and after browsing thru all the threads, I concluded Sigma 70-300mm is the user's choice here (I also realized that 70-300 related topics have been discussed a few time here) Trying to avoid repeated discussion, I try to narrow down a bit my topic.
I was attracted to it, partially it's economic (boil down to the old issue - budget constrain) to buy and i can have more zoom. More often I take candid photos, lot and lots of event (anything happen in town or in company, indoor or outdoor) and sometimes I shoot wildlife from far, from house lizards, stray mad dogs to birds in the woods.
The issues which bothered me were:
1. They tend to get soft, esp after 200mm
2. lateral chromatic abberation and distortion after 200mm and above
Question is: If I buy it could this len help me to improve my photo? (I know the popular say here: good photos relies on the person behind the camera- but I always scare away the animals (and shy human) when I get near them)
I can't try it out at my place here coz I'm in a small town and the shops here didn't keep stock for slow flow goods. And I only can do is to rely on other user's experience.
So I hope to hear some comment from all the pro, sifu, amatuer and photo enthusiast about it.
CurrentlyI have two options:
1. Buy and try to make a good use of it, and become one with it
2. Save the money and opt for a better product.
I prefer the 1st coz -- since it can have same function with the better product which is more expensive but with less convenience, why not I adopt myself to master it instead of spend more money. However the question in my head now is - is it possible to overcome those 'disadvantages' of this lens?