When I was young I always was fasinated by the Minolta HiMatic of my dad. A couple of years later I got my own Olympus Stylus type of camera. It was able to take some awsome pictures and sometimes I manage to capture what I had pictured in my mind. However I didn't know anything about Aperture, Shutterspeed and ISO relations. I just took pictures.
When I got in my twenties I thought I could afford myself an SLR and regained interest in shooting photos. I bought a minolta 404si, a basic SLR with a 28-80 kitlens. I rushed in to the forrest and soon discovered that the things I love to shoot were either too close or too far away. As a result I bought a 70-300 F4.5-5.6 Sigma lens. The cheapest there was, because back then I didn't know that the price tag was actually related to the lens quality. To be honest, I just shot some great pictures with it. After developping the prints looked quite nice.
Then the digital SLR era kicked in and they became affordable for the amateur photographer. In 2008 I got my self a Sony A200 and since I had the Sigma 70-300 I didn't have to invest in a new lens. In that same year however I bought a Tamron 90mm Macro lens. Wow what a great lens that was. Even back then I didn't always know what I was doing though. In times I got great shots with nice bokeh, but why that was I really didn't know. Reading on the internet there were so many stories and info about it, it was dazzeling.
Time went on and in 2010 I went to Brasil in the Amazon delta and ofcourse I took with me the Sigma. I made some very nice pictures but not all were great and at 300mm the Sigma didn't seem to perform that great. That was probably because I didn't print out the photos that often, an judged the photos at 100% on a computer screen. I started testing and it seemed the Sigma performed better on the old minolta then on my new Sony. I sold it because I didn't like the quality anymore, especially compared to the Tamron 90mm.