Travel / walk around lens for my EOS 600D

Andy01 wrote:

Wave forest wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Wave forest wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

Wave forest wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Wave forest wrote:

Third party lenses are fine if they are fine-tuned.

User Experience of Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C

1Dx4me wrote:

a canon 24-105mm f4.0 "L", preferably refurbished by canon to save money! this is an excellent range lens for walk around and daily activity with high IQ, much better than ef-s lenses, and someday when you upgrade to FF camera, 24-105 will fit nicely. i personally stay away from 3rd party lenses due to sometime AF compatibility with canon cameras! YMMV.

Not all of them. I had a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 that was just inconsistent, so no amount of AFMA would help - sometimes it got the focus right, other times it didn't.

From what I can tell, this is not a particularly unusual experience with Sigma lenses on Canon. It doesn't affect all lenses, but it certainly affects a lot Sigma lenses than Canon lenses.

Colin

The point is that F4.0 at 600D is too slow. It is equivalent to F5.6 at a full-frame camera. It is almost no use for locations such as museums, aquariums, botanic green houses, and streets in evening. There are not many Canon relatively fast lenses for their APS-C cameras.

this shot proves your theory wrong! i used my canon 17-40 f4.0 on my 40D, f6.3, 1/20 shutter speed! this was a pretty dark spot, dark as ambient light of a museum!. sounds like you don't have or used an f4.0 lens on a aps-c camera. i have numerous shots to prove you wrong:

Good shot and kudos to you.

Can you show me something with your F4.0 on 40D like that:

As I explained here , the old 18-55mm f3.5 - 5.6 IS struggled and I wasn't happy with those primes. I wished I could have a lens a bit wider.

Here is one that is not with a 40D, but it is with a "way too slow" lens, and it was handheld to boot.

Colin

Your severe perspective distorted building indicates that you were not far away. I can get a better on with my iPhone.

No, I was not far away, although the bridge and buildings in the background was certainly more than 500m away. What exactly has the distance got to do with anything ? Your image is wildly OOF and not in the least bit sharp (but probably looks great on your iPhone 5s), and I fail to see what that has got to do with distance (within reason of course). If there was ever an image that could be matched with a point & shoot or decent phone, yours shown above is it

You said that anything less than f4 is too slow for a APS-C, and there are two shots above (both at significantly slower shutter speeds than your image) at f4 that are at least as good as yours at f1.8, which sort of disputes your theory. To have an image taken at slower than 1 second shutter speed and f4 than appears to be sharper (or at least as sharp in the distance) than an image taken at 1/80th is proof that a slower aperture and IS can be quite effective for stationery subjects.

I look forward to you posting a similar nightscape taken with an iPhone (especially a 6 year old 5s) and displayed on a 27" screen - can't wait

Remember that while the displayed aperture of your phone might look like it is fast, with equivalence (which you were referring to above), it is actually not fast at all.

I am not interested in getting into a debate about this - you have your opinion, and others have theirs. You continue with your quest for lenses faster than f4 and enjoy.

It was taken in Chihuly museum, handheld.

Colin

I have some difficulty understanding why someone would want a fast lens for landscape or still art.  I think they would want a monopod or a tripod, with slower shutter, before a fast lens that left portions out of focus.

I'm surprised that the old time soldier could be sharply captured at 1/20.  He must be very still.  I could see that needing a faster lens but then it would lose the background detail (muskets, old hinges).