I think it depends on how close you want your macro shots to be. You won't be able to take really up close photos. For most things it'll probably suffice, but I've had issues taking up close pictures of food as the lens won't focus properly. It's definitely closer than a zoom lens or something, but if you really want to do macro, I'd spend the extra on a half decent macro lens.
Kudos for clarifying. The 50mm f1.8 is far from a good "macro" lens since its minimum focus distance (MFD) is quite a bit longer than true macro lenses like the EF-S 60mm f2.8 or even the quasi-macro lens like the 50mm f2.5, and also can't match either lenses in maximum magnification. Heck, it's even inferior in both categories compared to the kit lens EF-S 18-55mm f3.5 - 5.6:
very little, if any, resale value on this combo. On my local CL, each lens could be had for roughly $90 each. i wish the IS version of the 75-300 was included.
Agreed. I think it's a tough sale to get $100 on the 75-300mm since there are so many copies from previous deals. BTW the 75-300mm IS isn't actually that great according to reviews. The 70-300mm IS USM on the other hand, is a much better lens but it is a $350 lens by itself.
Last edited by sniperruff; 03-01-2013 at 06:06 AM..