Quote (Xandriia @ 26 Jan 2013 23:31)
Yeah I dont have much room inside to back up, so good point.
You guys are giving me even more to think about than I already had
I wish the 70-200 2.8 wasnt so damn expensive. But I guess you get what you pay for.
Do you sell your work or is it just a personal hobby? And doesnt sound very poor to me, lol.
Im just not very interested in the 35mm for some reason. I guess because Im pretty content with my 50 and its too close?
Im not really interested in any of those three things also, so yeah :P. no wildlife i just shoot for myself and fun, only shot i have had "published" so to speak was of an endangered Black Footed Cat, there are very few in the wild, are very difficult to find and nocturnal, hence not many photo's of the wild ones
and yes i have photo's of a cat

just not an ordinary house cat
i do corporate event photography though, i like some of the events but the photography side is boring, uninspiring and not artistic
so i am thinking of dropping it as an income and just doing the photography i enjoy as a hobby, will see what happens in the next couple months
wish i could afford a "real" wildlife photographers lens
well that shouldve made it alot easier for u now, all that should be left on your list is the 85 or the 100
Quote (lithfkn @ 27 Jan 2013 15:11)
mmmmm i think they are also too close together, it should be either one or the other if it's your first purchase. Stick with the 85 to start with.
My next lens will be the sigma 35 1.4 or the 100mm macro, i need something not as wide and tight as 24/50 for fashion (35mm) and something for beauty (macro)
Like I've said a few times, the new sigma 35 1.4 shits on the canon 35L and it's half the price

gotta test that 1 out then, only tried the canon so far
are there excellent and crap copies as most other sigma lenses or does the quality control seem good on it?