When shooting in Las Vegas

[dschae1]

I recently got back from Vegas and took a ton of pictures. I didn't want to lug around a ton of camera equip or lenses so I tried to choose a walk-around that would fit the bill in most situations. I bought a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 for this trip. I also took a Canon 50mm F1.4, but found it didn't work for a majority of my shots as it was too much lens (like a zoom). I have a Canon Rebel XT so the 1.6 crop factor played an effect with the 50mm.

Anyway, I got good shots daytime and night shooting the various modes on the camera. At night, it was almost full manual, varrying settings to try to achieve F4 at 17mm - 30mm in order to get enough light in. Whatever the focal length was, I changed the settings to match for exposure following the length = time rule of thumb. at 17mm (really 27.2mm with the crop factor), I tried to get 30th or 40th of a second exposure to overcome handshake. I had left my tripod at home. I would not have wnated to lug it all around anyway.

I have a subscription to Webshots so that's where you will find my photo's if you want a look. There is a link to the right of each photo's display page to see what they call "Original Size", but even this is a reduced 2400x? size. Some of the shots look oddly unsharp at the smaller size.

Toss it to the slide show and sit back and enjoy the Vegas day and night lights. If 5 seconds is too long, you can make it change to a 2 second delay.

Night shots:
http://community.webshots.com/album/551925358dUoECg

Day Shots:
http://community.webshots.com/album/551908817ffasXR

Lookin' Up shots: (not just your typical composition in Vegas)
http://community.webshots.com/album/551919728ZxEmNS

[darktiger]

Nice shots, I cannot wait to go back. I think I might have to wait until CES in January...

[dschae1]

I noticed the URL for the Day shots was the same as the Night Shots. I Corrected it above.

Day Shots:
http://community.webshots.com/album/551908817ffasXR

[LonestarMan]

Very nice. I'm impressed with the night shots handheld. How are you liking the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5? I'm considering picking up one.

[dschae1]

bought the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 for the following reasons: (in no particular order)
1) It wasn't too expensive ($389 at my local Wolf Camera store here in Texas)
2) It was wider than the 24mm or 28mm zoom lenses which gives me more range. I took test photo's and was surprised at how much more of the scene is available when you go just a little wider.
3) It allows F2.8 (at least at the wide side) which should come in handy when my "walking around" is indoors.
4) It didn't weigh as much as the others in this class, which seemed important to me as this one will be mounted on the camera most of the time.
5) It comes with a petal lens hood

The negatives I've noticed are:
1) The switch to change from AF to MF is very stiff
2) the AF hunts a little too much in low light
3) It is not as fast as my lenses with the USM focusing motor, however, this is not a problem at all for me as it still is fast enough, maybe a little faster than the kit lens. (I'm spoiled by the USM)
4) Bot really a negative, but, the sharpness seems fine to me, not as good as my L lens, but also not as expensive.

Photography seems to be all about compromises, wider vs. longer, F2.8 vs. F4, Sharper vs. not quite as sharp, heavy vs. light and $ vs. $$ vs. $$$ (L). It's just the way it is I suppose.

Overall, I am pleased with this purchase.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06...sigma17-70.asp

[LonestarMan]

Thanks so much for your review. I've been reading a lot on this and the 24 and 28's and the 17-50ish 2.8's If this was 2.8 throughout, I would be sold. For my everyday use, it will work fine, but I have started doing some second shooter wedding stuff and really wanted that extra stop, then again, I don't want to give up the wide end on my APS crop. I'm perplexed.

[johnastovall]

When I shoot in Las Vegas it's either on the pass line or full auto here.