Telephoto and/or macro lens on a budget

[foxor]

I'm new to the dslr world... I've had my T1i with the 18-55mm kit lens since Christmas and am very much enjoying it. I think I'm ready to expand to a second lens. Unfortunately I'm on a really tight budget, and want to get my feet wet for less than $300.

Most of the photos I take are while traveling (anything from landscapes and architecture to portraits) and nature and wildlife. I'm a huge fan of macro, but totally not properly equipped to get those sorts of shots with just the kit lens. I also find I'm taking lots of shots (especially of wildlife) with the intent to crop, because I don't have enough zoom.

I've been looking at:
1) some macro tubes, like this: Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lens AEXTUBEDGC
2) a ~55-250mm lens

Would a lens like this (Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO-M DG Macro Lens 508101 B&H Photo) kill two birds with one stone? Anyone have experience with this lens?

[veritasimagery]

I have the Canon 55-250 lens to go with the 18-55 on my T3i. That gives a pretty good coverage of focal lengths on a budget.

As you develop your style and the types of shots you prefer, then you will start to see what lenses will work best for you.


Kevin
Veritas Imagery NW

[photog1107]

I use the Kenko set all the time, because I too, was not ready to drop $1K on a macro. They work very well for out of doors where there is plenty of light.

Here is a sample, and this one was actually indoors under incandescent light.

http://photog1107.smugmug.com/Animal...27_dEvnA-M.jpg

Hope this helps!

[foxor]

Thanks guys for the replies. photog1107, that photo looks great!

I think I have been leaning towards the Sigma lens, but I still have to do a bit more reading to see if I'll be happy with that.

[inkista]

The Sigma lens is pretty like the 55-250 and not really a Macro lens at all, despite the designation. You are not getting two lenses for the price of one. The "macro" capability of the 70-300 is really only half-a-macro (1:2 magnification, not 1:1), and not much different from what the 55-250 can give you.

If you're serious about macro photography, I'd say get a macro lens.

My suggestion to you is two-fold:

1) Get the 55-250 IS or the Sigma 70-300.

2) Get a ($100) 50mm f/1.8 II and reverse mount it or get extension tubes for it. Reverse mounting means you use it on the camera backwards. You can either get a mounting ring for it that will screw onto its filter threads, or just hold it up in front of your camera body, or get a male-to-male coupling filter ring and screw it onto the front of one of your other lenses, face-to-face. Extension tubes are hollow plastic tubes that simply hold the lens farther away from the body, but still maintain the electronic communication between the body and lens, so you retain aperture and focus control. Here's an example of a photo I took with the Kenko extension tube set, all three tubes stacked, and the simple little 50/1.8 II on my old Canon XT (350D).



In addition to getting a toy for poor man's macro methods, you also get a good basic fast prime for not much money, which you can use for portrait or low-light shooting.

Others will, obviously disagree (we recently had a whole thread on why some folks hate their 50/1.8), but that's the way I'd go if I were on a budget.