Difference in lenses?

[lesleyr]

Yep - agree with the Sigma 10 - 20.

Also love the Sigma 105 mm F2.8 macro.

Can't go wrong with them. Won't necessarily break the bank either.

Lesley

[yelvertoft]

Another vote for the Sigma EX 105mm f2.8 Macro
Wonderful bit of glass, picked up for a song.

[JACK9019]

For portraits Canon 50mm 1.8 I believe it's the predecessor to the mark II---It's rated higher than than the mark II. Excellent portrait lens for less than $80.00 here in the US. The old one would probable be 30.00 or 40.00 US These 50mm are the best lens value you will get. It looks to me like you need a wide angle Zoom and for that I would recommend the Tokina 12-24. check out this link for a comparison. These are good lenses and should be a lot less than the canon. hope this helps, Jack http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...out/index.html

[postcardcv]

I'd agree that both the Sigma 105 macro and the 10-20 are excellent lenses... but how about a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It's an outstanding lens, a good fast lens for motorsports (works well with tc's when you need more reach) and very nice for portraits/candids.

[gordon g]

I'd second a sigma 70-200 f2.8. Really nice lens - good handling, quick focussing, good sharpness and contrast even wide open. When I'm not photographing birds, it's the lens that stays on my camera the most. It's also quite rugged - when Sheffield and Barnsley suffered the flooding back in the 'summer' I spent all day out in the steady downpour taking photos, sometimes with a binbag over the camera but often not; no problems and very little condensation at the end of the day.

[SDPhotography]

Well, I shall be buying a new lens this week in the guise of a Canon 50mm prime F1.8 Mk2

I aim to do some portraits and I always luurve a shallow DOF on portraits and the 50mm prime comes highly recommended from photographers of all levels