|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
|
![]()
I have just upgraded to a 20D and am visiting the States in a couple of months, Colorado to be exact. I want a good walk around lens to replace the kit lens. Is there a huge differance between the quality of Sigma and Canon lenses, at least to cover the extra cost of Canon ? I fancy a Sigma 17-70 DC macro but wonder if I would be better off with the canon 18-125. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
|
![]()
janetr wrote:
Quote:
I don't know much about the 17-70, but I know it is fast at the wide end, and has a great focal range. Chris M www.imagineimagery.com |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
|
![]()
I too have the 20d with the 17 - 85mm IS USM lens. It is a great all purpose lens and does quite well even in low light situations, only when the subject is NOT moving. If they are you may get some blur, depends of course how fast they're moving. Shooting a clear shotwith this lens in low light is based on timing.
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Below, I was watching my dog enjoy his rope toy so there was some head movement which, if I took the shot during that time would have been blurred. I waited until he momentarily stopped and took the picture. This is alsowithout a flash. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
![]()
Awesome dog shot!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
|
![]()
Here is another one from tonight playing darts with my son...or rather he's throwing the darts. Looks like this one's heading for bullseye!
20D, 17-85mm IS USM, 1/2000, 4.0, ISO 3200 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 185
|
![]()
tamron 28-75 is very good and fast at 2.8. i don"t understand why anybody needs IS for a lenses that only goes up to 85 . 17-85 is good but not for all the extra $$.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
|
![]()
Some of you looking at the specs above in the dart pic might be wondering how I got a 1/2000 shot with my 17 - 85mm 4.0 lens. Well I managed to find 1400 watts of light andpointed it at the dart board.
The one thing with this 4.0 - 5.6, 17 - 85mm lensin low light is to enhance the light by anymeans possible, (try not to use the flash, it causes shadows) direct it in such a way to avoid shadows and you should be able to reach fast shutter speeds.This concept is for all 4.0 and up lenses shooting low light. This next action swimmingpic is again in alow light settingbut I tookadvantage of the large bank of windows on the far side of the building, waited for this swimmer to get to that end of the pool and the photo turned out great. The ideal lens would have been the 70 - 200mm 2.8 but if your shooting with a 4.0 - 5.6 general purpose lens you have to be in better light for action shots. Ialso shoot at ISO 3200 and run the photo through a noise program. Once you understand the peramiters of your general purpose lens, grab light where you can, it does not to bad. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
|
![]() camerageak wrote: Quote:
And when I travel or go on a long hike, the IS on my 17-85IS allows me to take wide angle landscape shots during the golden hour, with greater DOF 9requiring slower shutter speeds), and higher image qualty (lower ISO), without needing tolug aroundmy tripod. Now you understand why IS is useful at any focal length... Chris www.imagineimagery.com |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]()
janetr wrote:
Quote:
An experienced photographer thrilled with the Sigma 18-125 (in low-light)! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
|
![]()
This is a pic of a night time street drag taken with the Tamron 28-75 2.8.
It was almost dark, only the dim lights of the fairgrounds illuminated the raceway. And I was standing on the wall right next to the cars. The cars approximate speed as they went buy was 60-80 mph. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|