F2.8 and light with Canon 17-55 and Sigma 18-35

Great Bustard wrote:

007peter wrote:

J A C S wrote:

007peter wrote:

For example, shooting at 1/60s~1/100s in lowlight often result in pitch-black-backdrop. Where as using slower 1/10S ~ 1/40s allow me to illuminate the backdrop and avoid the pitch-black backdrop that I find annoying.

The flash freezes the main subject and the background is blurred anyway - so 1/10 to 1/40 sec without IS on this shot would not have made much of a difference.

You're right that both lens will take the SAME PHOTO setting them both at 1/10s ~ 1/40s shutter-speed, in theory.

But in real life, you're dealing with arm fatigue, hand tremors, etc...Keep in mind that Sigma 18-35mm /1.8 is a bulky heavy lens @ 811g, which makes it front heavy & balance poorly on smaller/lighter weight DSLR. It is easy to shoot @1/10s without IS on smaller prime like 50/1.4. It another when trying to shoot @1/10s without IS on a large fix f/1.8 zoom like Sigma 18-35.

Your rebuttal is that an 811g lens is so heavy that it's going to make you shaky? Well, alrighty, then! May I recommend the 18-55 IS STM over the 17-55 / 2.8 IS for you. At 205g, it's much lighter than the 811g 18-35 / 1.8 and the 645g 17-55 / 2.8 IS, not to mention a lot less expensive.

Read the title, my reply is clearly state to @JAC at the title.  I wasn't talking to you.  Why do you insist on butting in?

i have my opinion to OP thread, you disagree that is fine, you're entitle to your opinion.  But that last reply was specifically address to another person.  Are you so bored with your life that you feel the need to squeeze into other's conversation?

It clearly you're looking to START a flame war of some kind.  Sorry, but some people here do have a life to attend to.  I don't hang out here 24/7, Joe.