Is a Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 the right lens for me?

I'm shooting with a 30D, and have a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and a 50mm f/1.4. I am so inexperienced in this and have been mucking up shots for so long (I just read the best note on here about aperture vs. ISO vs. shutter speed vs. f/stop), that I want to get into better phototaking.

Anyway, I do take a lot of medium to low-light stuff with our 2 year old and 11 month old, plus I like shooting landscapes, nature, etc.

I was thinking of trying out the Sigma 24-60, thinking it might be a better walk-around lens than the 28-135 (which I just never have loved, maybe I am using it improperly). I really enjoy the 50,, f/1.4, but sometimes find it too inflexible.

I've read all the "read this before asking about lens" sections, but am still so novice at this that I am not sure what to do.

Budget is a concern, and I am also thinking the Canon 10-22mm might be a great choice, esp. on the crop-body 30D, but the Sigma 24-60 is so much cheaper its enticing. The Canon 10-22 would be at the very top top end of what I can afford right now.

This is a wonderful site, and am so glad I found it. I've learned so much in two weeks that I should have learned long ago, its startling.

Two diferent lens.

You needs to evaluate what is more important for you, the wide angle, or the fast aperture at 24-60. I also has the 28-135, but prefers my 24-60 for my every day use due the 24mm end. For wide angle I has the Tokina 12-24 as is wide enough for my use.

alexwinsberg wrote in post #7270291
I'm shooting with a 30D, and have a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and a 50mm f/1.4. I am so inexperienced in this and have been mucking up shots for so long (I just read the best note on here about aperture vs. ISO vs. shutter speed vs. f/stop), that I want to get into better phototaking.

Anyway, I do take a lot of medium to low-light stuff with our 2 year old and 11 month old, plus I like shooting landscapes, nature, etc.

I was thinking of trying out the Sigma 24-60, thinking it might be a better walk-around lens than the 28-135 (which I just never have loved, maybe I am using it improperly). I really enjoy the 50,, f/1.4, but sometimes find it too inflexible.

I've read all the "read this before asking about lens" sections, but am still so novice at this that I am not sure what to do.

Budget is a concern, and I am also thinking the Canon 10-22mm might be a great choice, esp. on the crop-body 30D, but the Sigma 24-60 is so much cheaper its enticing. The Canon 10-22 would be at the very top top end of what I can afford right now.

This is a wonderful site, and am so glad I found it. I've learned so much in two weeks that I should have learned long ago, its startling.

If low light is needed, id say get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 over the 10-22, GREAT wide, its less money than the 10-22 and its a f/2.8!

Less range though..

I've heard the 24-60 is underrated...but a good lens

Anyways, so what sorts of problems are you having? with a 50mm f/1.4 id think you'd have an easy time..

I'll have to post some photos, but I am mucking up aperture vs ISO. I guess it's easier to show the photos than to try to explain it.

Thanks for the advice and help....I'm so glad to have found this site.

alexwinsberg wrote in post #7270291
Budget is a concern, and I am also thinking the Canon 10-22mm might be a great choice, esp. on the crop-body 30D, but the Sigma 24-60 is so much cheaper its enticing. The Canon 10-22 would be at the very top top end of what I can afford right now.

Most people who want an affordable fast zoom go with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 II. Both are excellent lenses for the money. They are far better suited for indoor and landscape shots that zooms that start at 24mm or 28mm. They are certainly more popular than the Sigma 24-60 f2.8.

I can also vouch for the EF-S 10-22mm lens, which was my favorite lens in all the years I spent shooting with a Rebel.

First things first...
What is your Budget? Can you scrape a bit more together if needed for something that will be better?
What is your main priority for shooting? Landscapes, kids, indoor, outdoor, night, day?

From there let us see some of these photos (only a few like 3 or 4) that you are supposedly mucking up. Sometimes a quick suggestion from another user can cause that epipheny moment and suddenly those same photos (shot again) turn out MUCH better.

Don't be so quick to jump to a new lens. Learn what you have, the limitations and the cavieats and then determine what will best fit your style. I have two lenses in my bag right now a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8 mkII) and my zoom (tamron 24-135mm macro). Seeing as I have not yet determined my style I am "looking" at other lenses but still trying to figure what I want to do with my photography and then move from there..

gregnash wrote in post #7271144
From there let us see some of these photos (only a few like 3 or 4) that you are supposedly mucking up. Sometimes a quick suggestion from another user can cause that epipheny moment and suddenly those same photos (shot again) turn out MUCH better.

Exactly! If I had this place when I first started shooting I'm betting I'd not have thrown out a lot of shots I did!

Now I realize I was probubly the one mucking up most of the shots I used my 50 prime on....

I'd say my primary photo-taking efforts are chasing the kids around inside and out, but my real enjoyment comes from landscapes, nature, etc. I guess that means a little of everything.

So, here are some of the photos:

28-135mm @28mm f/3.5 - Bottling our wines

I had a 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG back when I had my Nikon D200.

As far as image quality goes, the lens was very good. I compared shots taken at f/2.8 and f/4, and there was not a huge gap in performance. It was sharp across the entire frame, even when used wide-open.

However...

The range of the lens is not optimized for APS-C sensor cameras. A 24-60mm range is very desirable on a full-frame camera, going from wide to normal. However, on a cropped-sensor camera it's like a 38.4-96mm lens, which is a normal to short telephoto. Great for portraits, but not very useful for landscapes and other times when you need wide-angle coverage.

What ISO are you shooting these at? That may be part of your problem. Also, one thing that I do notice is that these are all very "snapshottie". With kids I understand it is hard to get them to sit still and frame a shot but with what your looking at doing (landscapes mostly), you should look at your framing a bit more.

One thing to remember is to keep your aperture in mind. The smaller the number the shorter your depth of field will be. So for instance, the first image, has an aperture of f/3.5 which is the lowest stop that lens can do. However, I bet if your reshot the image at say f/5.6, f/8, f/16, f/22 they would all be sharper and you would see more of the subject. The main problem with that image is you are not focusing on any specific thing, there is no composition in the photo. What exactly were you aiming at? What was meant to be your main focus point? From the looks of it, it was the boxes and that was it.

On the last one you need to setup you shot a bit more. Again it looks more "snapshottie" as though it was just a quick snap and that was it. There is little to no composition in the image, however that can be fixed with a crop. Again what was your main subject of the image? Is it to showcase the snow of the mountains? If so then cut all the city below them out of it.

All that aside, keep taking pictures. Try and frame those that you can and think about your settings. Also, if you can leave the exif data attached so that we can review it. Pick up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Petersen, this book will help you understand the nuts and bolts of what you are doing.

How about getting an external flash? It made a HUGE difference on my 28-135 and 50mm 1.8 when used indoors while taking pictures of my newborn.

stargazer78 wrote in post #7271072
Most people who want an affordable fast zoom go with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 II. Both are excellent lenses for the money. They are far better suited for indoor and landscape shots that zooms that start at 24mm or 28mm. They are certainly more popular than the Sigma 24-60 f2.8.

I can also vouch for the EF-S 10-22mm lens, which was my favorite lens in all the years I spent shooting with a Rebel.

I know the Tamron gets a lot of attention, but is the 18-50mm Sigma more popular than the 24-60? Seems like the picture archive thread for the 24-60 is ALOT bigger than the 18-50 thread.

I just got a 24-60 and put on a 1.3x crop. For $199, heck of a nice lens (if you get one with no issues)