so, im going to get a new lens... and i cant chose between the 2....

Choice 1:

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 macro.

http://47stphoto.com/item_child.asp?...y2=&subcatky3=

Now, with that lens, i can have an <i>ok</ok> wide angle range, basically what i already have now, but i would have an AMAZING depth of field ( having the front subject in clear focus, and everything in the background would be blurred.) With the Macro feature, i would also be able to zoom in an get VERY close to something. like to be able to see the veins in a flower. Not only that but i would have a great zoom range also


Choice 2:

Sigma 10-20mm fisheye wide angle f/4-5.6

http://47stphoto.com/item_child.asp?...y2=&subcatky3=

This lens would give me an AMAZING wide angle range to create some very new and different styles of pictures. BUT, i would be lacking the tremendous depth of field of the f/2.8 aperture of the other lens. Now, i do believe on photoshop with some time i CAN blur the background to make it look like i have a really low f-stop.

below are some photo example(s) from each lens.

an hdr from the Choice 2 Sigma 10-20
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/...522cfd59_b.jpg

a great b&w showing the bend caused from the fisheye. it allows you to get SOOOO close to the subject
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/...01568c40_o.jpg



a macro close up from the Choice 1 Sigma 17-70
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/...c0996a83_b.jpg

more macro example
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/14...cce69682_b.jpg

the great depth of field with the f/2.8 of the 17-70
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/14...cc8629a6_b.jpg




I really dont know which one to ****in pick . i think i would have more fun and creative with the 10-20 fisheye, but the 17-70 might be more practical? with the zoom and all. IDFK!



sorry for some of the noob explanations. i originally typed it for people who know nothing about the stuff. didnt feel like re-doing it