Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS initial review

In my last post I discussed my brief experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC blah de blah (insert lots of other abbreviated letters here). I also talked about why, in the end, I swapped it for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS.

In the previous post to that (see here) I wrote about why I was even getting a new lens in the first place, and about swapping back to Canon after using an Olympus micro four thirds system for the last two years. I had a wedding coming up, and just a week out from the big event, I was prompted (literally) to trade in all my gear and move back to a DSLR kit.

Of course the most important component of any camera system is.... the lens (shame on you if you said camera body). Shooting a wedding is a one-off event. So I wanted to know that the gear was going to stand up to the pressure of the day, and perform. The Canon 50D is a known entity - I've owned and used all the mid-range Canon DLSR's from the 10D upwards to the 50D, and used them on many weddings. And, of course, I took two 50D bodies with me on the wedding day, so that I would have back-up if one failed (it didn't).

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 however, isn't a lens I've ever used - and except for a couple of quick snaps in my lounge, I wasn't going to have time to really test it out before the wedding day. Scary stuff (and not something I advise to be honest).

Blue eyes. Sigma 17-50mm. 1/60th @ f2.8, ISO 1000

Well, I needn't have worried. The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS is a stellar lens. A fantastic piece of kit. If you can't tell already, I'm chuffed to bits with it as a lens, and I have a weddings worth of fabulous images to prove why.

You don't get a constant aperture f2.8 lens to shoot it at f8 all day, especially when light levels are low - so for most of the wedding day I shot the Sigma wide open at f2.8 (or there abouts). From the very first image the results were spectacular! Look at the image on the right, shot wide open at f2.8. The front eye (that I focused on and recomposed) is razor sharp and the background blur (bokeh) is smooth and creamy. This is one of the first images I took on the wedding day, and a quick check by magnifying the image on the rear lcd screen of the camera confirmed that the Sigma/Canon combination had nailed focus. I was very happy, and this one image gave me the confidence to shoot the Sigma wide-open for the rest of the day and not worry about sharpness.

I did get a few slightly unsharp shots mixed in with the rest during the day, but I'm quite happy to put that down completely to user-error and not the fault of the equipment, which worked flawlessly.

Make it Quick! 50D with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. 1/25th @ f8, ISO 1000

I did occasionally take the aperture off of f2.8, especially if there were large groups involved. The image of the bridal party isn't the greatest wedding image ever taken, but it was raining quite heavily and so we ran outside under a tree to take literally one quick shot.

What the photo does demonstrate is the Sigma's corner sharpness, at 17mm, with an f8 aperture. This is ideal landscape photography territory (I'm a landscape photographer first and foremost after all), and the result is very pleasing. Very good extreme corner edge sharpness, and very sharp overall - considering the shutter speed of only 1/25th sec! The OS (optical stabilisation) system is really proving its worth in this image, and is smooth and quiet in operation (unlike Tamron's noisy and clunky VC implementation). As with all wide angle zoom settings, there is some edge distortion, but this is to be expected and probably easily corrected for in post. Besides, the Sigma probably won't be my 'go to' landscape lens - I have the Canon 10-22mm ultra-wide for that (which, as an ultra-wide, also has a lot of distortion).

Jess. Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. 1/80th @ f2.8, ISO 200

What the Sigma will be used for, is as my general, all-purpose lens. And as a 17-50mm (27-80mm equivalent) this is where it excels. It was the only lens I used on the wedding day, going from 17mm wide angle for group and ceremony shots, to 50mm telephoto for portraits at the flick of a wrist. The autofocus is accurate and the HSM mechanism quick and deadly silent.

The body is manufactured from high quality polycarbonate plastic, with a metal lens mount and all-glass lens elements. These include two FD elements (similar to flourite) as well as Aspherical moulded lenses to correct for abberations - which they seem to do admirably. My copy is tightly constructed, with no obvious seems or joins, wobbles or creaks. As other reviewers have mentioned, there is a slight 'rattle' from the lens if it is shaken (don't shake the lens) that comes from the OS system. This is normal, and is consistent with other Sigma products. I had a Sigma 60mm f2.8 OS telephoto for my Olympus micro four thirds that rattled like a baby's toy, but performance was excellent.

At 77mm, the front element is rather large, which unfortunately means big $$ for filters. But I already had a 77mm UV for the Canon 10-22mm, and the camera store threw in a 77mm Polariser to make up the price difference with the Tamron I had purchased, so I've come away with the filters I need anyway.

Trav & Jess, Rapahoe. Canon 50D with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. 1/200th @ f3.5, ISO 200. Canon 430EX III flash

Am I happy with how the Canon 50D and Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 performed on the wedding day? I think you can tell that I am. The Sigma is a fantastic lens - sharp, well balanced, with excellent colour rendition and contrast (no warm colour cast that I can detect), and sharp - did I mention sharp? I think I did 😉 In fact, on some of the close-up bridal portraits I thought that it was actually too sharp! So much so that I applied some skin softening in post to reduce the effect. Now that's sharp.

I'm aware that people talk about copy variance with third-party lenses. Some Sigma's (and Tokina's and Tamron's) have been known to suffer from back or front focusing issues so that images don't come out sharply focused on the intended area. I must have a good copy, because I'm not seeing any focusing issues that would cause me concern. It also seems that maybe Sigma have 'uped' their quality control game over the years? Their 'Art' series lenses are getting amazing reviews - for build quality and IQ, although so they should, since they come at a premium.

The next lens I'm actually interested in is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM DG. Again, it gets great reviews for sharpness and build quality - even surpassing the Canon 50mm f1.4. We have one of  these where I work, so I can feel a 50mm lens comparison test coming on...

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC Mini Review

Last post I mentioned my somewhat brief experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens (or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC LD IF lens to give it its full and proper title - whew!). Although I only had it for a few hours, and returned it due to some internal lens element issues (some fungal blooming was developing), it was long enough to take some test images and formulate some opinions of the lens in general. Opinions I'm going to share here... 😀

First, let me repeat that last sentence. 'Opinions' I'm going to share here. These are just my opinions, from my admittedly brief time with this lens. Of course a few hours with a lens isn't enough time to give an in-depth review (hence the 'mini review' in the title of this post). But it's also more than enough time for me to formulate an opinion on any piece of gear, one way or the other. Oh, and spoiler alert - I would have returned the lens even if it didn't have fungus issues.

Initially though, I have to admit to being impressed by the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. At 570g it's a fairly hefty and substantial piece of kit, and certainly has a 'presence' to it. It looks the business, and the fit and finish is of a reasonably high quality. Nothing wobbled or creaked on my second-hand copy, even though it looked as if it had a reasonable amount of use.
There is a lot of plastic involved in the lenses construction, but it has a metal lens mount, and the plastic feels extremely dense and solid. As mentioned, it really does feel very substantial in the hand (and on the camera).

Unfortunately, this also happens to be my first grumble with this lens. I actually think it's a bit too hefty. Yes, seriously. Maybe I've been a bit spoilt using mirrorless over the last two years, but even the all-metal constructed M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro I was trading in for this lens only weighs 382g. I also think that some of the issue I had was because it seems to be a very back-heavy lens. A lot of the weight felt as if it was concentrated at the mount-end (rear), making it a very unbalanced lens. Attached to the Canon 50D body, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC gave me the impression that it was placing a lot of strain on the cameras bayonet lens mount. I'm sure this isn't an issue - I haven't heard of any camera mounts being destroyed by the tamron. But it's certainly the feeling I got when I used this lens, and I can't say I've ever felt that way with a lens before - ever.

Pruning. Canon 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. 1/320th @ f3.5, ISO 100. (at 17mm)

The other annoyance I noticed straight away with the lens was to do with the VC (vibration control). It makes a very audible 'clunk' sound as the vibration control kicks in - which is very annoying. The VC works - no doubt - it's just quite noisy, and quite noticeable while it's doing it! I don't know if this is the same with all Tamron's VC lenses, but it was certainly the case with this lens.

Tree - Opawa. 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. 1/250th @ f3.5 (at 17mm)

And finally (I did say this was a 'mini' review), we come to IQ (image quality). It's ok. Really - just ok. Centrally it's sharp from f2.8, but the corners are very soft, especially at 17mm. It also exhibits quite a high level of purple fringing, and stopping down doesn't really help in this regard. Purple fringing was clearly evident in areas of high contrast, even at f5.6.

There's obvious distortion at the edges at 17mm (look at the lean on the house at the edge of the frame), but I won't hold that against the lens - it's fairly common for standard zooms at the wide angle end.

Finishing on a positive - vignetting seems well controlled at the wide angles, wide open, and autofocusing was quick and responsive (albeit with a little noise from the focusing motor).

No, as I said at the beginning, I didn't do exhaustive tests. Don't need to. Wandering around a park on a Monday morning, taking 'snaps' of anything that took my fancy, at apertures that I would normally shoot at, tells me everything I need to know about the lenses image quality and performance. And for me, it was a lens I struggled to like and get along with. So I went back that morning and exchanged it for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. And I have to say, the performance is night and day different.

Outside Springfield - Canterbury. Canon 50D with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. 1/60th @ f11, ISO 100

I prefer everything about the Sigma, when compared to the Tamron. Ironically, at 565g, it's only 5g lighter than the Tamron - but it feels a lot lighter because it's a better balanced lens. The front element is even bigger (77mm vs 72mm) which would normally suggest a lens would be heavier, but the Sigma is a fraction lighter despite the bigger front. In operation the Sigma is quieter and faster, and has a much better (i.e. silent) image stabilisation system (Sigma call it OS - optical stabilisation). It's also considered a sharper lens that the Tamron, and while I can't confirm this with a side-by-side comparison, images I've taken with the Sigma have been crazy, insanely sharp. On par with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 I owned once upon a time ago. And corner sharpness on the Sigma does seem significantly better than on the Tamron.

I'm not a Sigma fanboy, or a Tamron hater. When I walked out of the camera store with the Tamron I was a very excited and happy camper - until I actually used it. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens I used was an unbalanced, noisy beast that I didn't get along with (lens element issues aside). Images from it were just so-so, and I would have a hard time recommending the lens to anyone.

Ironically, when I was returning the lens the next day, a woman was purchasing a brand new Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC over a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS. Apparently the Tamron was $100 cheaper. I would have paid the extra $100 bucks for the Sigma...   

And back to Canon again... again

I've been re-reading my blogposts from the last 10 years (yes, I really have been blogging for that long), and I think I've used the title of this particular post on at least three other occasions (apart from the extra 'again' at the end).

And yes, it's true. After about 2 years as an Olympus micro-four-thirds mirrorless user, I've once again moved camps and switched allegiances back to Canon DLSR's. "How come"? - I hear no one ask. Well, it's slightly bewildering to me as well, but let me explain as succinctly as I can....

I loved using my Olympus E-M1, and E-M5 II. They are truly outstanding cameras.I've extolled the virtues of said cameras on this blog (and in other guest posts) and will continue to do so. But, I have also written on this blog about my continued (and almost impossible to shake) love affair with the DLSR. And even though I've pretty much used them all, the one system I seem to keep coming back to, is Canon.

As the top dog in camera manufacturers (sales figures and Sony be damned), everyone loves to hate Canon. They have, as the saying goes, the furthest to fall. Yet in the same breath, almost everyone praises Canon's IQ and colour science. They just produce beautiful image files. Not to mention the ergonomics.

But I will - mention the ergonomics I mean. Because the ergonomics of a Canon enthusiast range to top end DLSR are exceptional. The large back control wheel and joystick combination on most of their cameras is ingenious. Best end user-experience bar none (IMHO). And this is where I think the Olympus E-M1 and E-M5 was let down a little - ergonomically. At least for me. Even with the grip attached, my E-M1 just didn't feel all that comfortable in the hand. Canon's DLSR's, however, certainly do (again, to me).

Also, looking back on my previous blogposts, I always seem to come to a crucial decision over camera systems when wedding season is approaching. I might not be a wedding shooter anymore, but it seems that this trend has continued. Because I have a wedding coming up - next weekend in fact (as I write this), and here I am, changing back to Canon just before I have a wedding to shoot.

I was quite happy - and would have been quite happy, to shoot the wedding with my Olympus E-M1. I had no intention of changing a week out from the big day. Honest. So why did I, and what changed my mind?

Last weekend, my wife and I had to go to Christchurch for a medical appointment. I was planning a trip to Photo and Video in Merivale to check out (drool over) the new Olympus E-M1x. Simple enough. But, literally the night before we were due to head off, I woke up at 4am with one thought in my mind - 'trade in your Olympus gear for a Canon DLSR before the wedding'. Try as I might, I couldn't get this thought out of my head, and I couldn't get back to sleep. I honestly hadn't thought about anything other than checking out the new E-M1x prior to waking at 4am - but there it was, and it wouldn't go away.

I've written previously about how, as a Christian, I believe God often leads me with my photography. Whether you believe this or not, I do believe that he is interested in all aspects of our lives. As a creative God, I feel his presence most deeply when I'm outside being creative myself. And I also believe that if the Holy Spirit prompts you at 4am, then you would do well to listen.

I eventually got up a couple of hours later and had a workout on the exercise bike. While cycling on the spot, I looked up Photo and Video's website to see what they had available in their second hand department. I had decided that if I couldn't walk away with an almost identical Canon kit after trading in my Olympus gear, then I wasn't interested (I was listening to God's prompting, but I'm not stupid! 😇). Not surprisingly (sorry God), they had everything I wanted in stock (second-hand) if I could get the right price for my trade-in.

I decided on a Canon 50D body (I already have a very well-used one on permanent loan) with a Sigma 17-50mm HSM OS f2.8 lens and Canon 430EX II flash. This would basically give me like-for-like (roughly), and actually get me a more comprehensive kit because I already have a Canon 10-22mm EF-S, Canon 90-300mm f4.5/5.6 USM and BG-E2 vertical grip for the 50D.

As mentioned earlier, I love the ergonomics of the 50D. It's the last of the pro-sumer magnesium-alloy bodied XXD cameras (released in 2008). From the 60D onwards they've changed the materials and control wheel design slightly, and I like it less. So it's the 15MP, magnesium alloyed 50D for me!

The 50D at Photo & Video was in good condition, with a low shutter count (just over 9000 actuation's), at a great price. The Canon 430EX II speedlite was similarly in good condition at a good price - and even more importantly, it looked like they were going to offer me a great deal on my Olympus kit (in absolute mint condition). So, much to my surprise (and growing excitement), the deal was almost done! And now to the lens...

Again, I was adamant that I didn't want to loose out on the quality that I had, so a constant f2.8 mid-range zoom to replace the outstanding Olympus Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro was a must. Trouble is, these lenses don't tend to be cheap - even the third-party offerings. But the website indicated they had a couple of Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lenses available, and a quick check of lens reviews for the Sigma on Youtube looked promising. To my surprise, however, the salesman helping me out with the deal (thanks Adam) reached in the case and pulled out a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens. I hadn't even considered a Tamron (it wasn't listed on their website), but what a beast! Attached to the 50D it's a monster of a lens - exceptionally well made, very heavy, and quite imposing. Almost - dare I say it - a little 'too' heavy? Yeah, I know - what did I expect. Isn't it what I wanted, after all? But I was coming from micro four thirds remember - and even I have my limits for weight in a camera 😳

Regardless, I was willing to take his advice, and so the deal was struck. An Olympus OM-D E-M1 with HLD-7 Grip and M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro (plus camera remote release, spare battery and accessory flash) traded in for a Canon 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens and Canon 430EX II flashgun. Good deal!

That night, back at the Hotel, I checked over my 'new' Canon kit and started to set up the 50D how I like to shoot (I may do a post on that another time?). Looking over the Tamron, I was still impressed/surprised at the weight of the lens, but on closer inspection I thought I could detect quite a few blemishes on the front lens element. Nothing a quick clean wouldn't fix - I thought. But... on even closer inspection, it appeared to me that there was the start of some fungal blooming on the inside of the front lens elements. Not good!

Long story short - I returned the lens the next day, and swapped it for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 that I thought I would go for in the first place. The Sigma is in pristine condition, has an even bigger front lens element (77mm rather than the 72mm of the Tamron), but is, in fact, lighter than the Tamron - and apparently a little sharper if the online reviews are to be believed. I am much happier with the Sigma lens over the Tamron - fungal issues of the Tamron aside. The Sigma just seems to be a better match with the Canon 50D. Quick example; the Tamron lens doesn't 'talk' to the Canon 430EZ flash for distance information when zooming the flash head, whereas the Sigma does. Go figure?

So yes, I've made the switch back to Canon - again. And, as I've written quite a few times on this blog, I couldn't be happier. With the 50D body and grip, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 10-22mm EF-S, Canon 90-300mm f4.5/5.6 USM and Canon 430EZ II Speedlite, I've got a comprehensive system for the wedding this weekend (it's a 'freebie' for friends). I've even got a little store credit at Photo & Video left over than I might put to good use soon if/when a fast prime (nifty 50?) turns up in their second-hand department. I'm already thinking about possible future lens purchases (fast prime, macro, fisheye). Good times 👍     

 

Vlogging is HARD!

This year I’ve started vlogging on Youtube. I’ve only produced four vlogs so far (as of April 2019), so I’m hardly an expert (and probably never will be). But I do have a few thoughts on the initial experience, some on gear, and some on the technicalities of editing etc.

Firstly the gear. Because I’m just beginning, and don’t intend on becoming a ‘serious’ daily vlogger, I want to make use of the gear I’ve already got. I’m still not sure whether I’m going continue vlogging either, so really don’t want to pour a whole lot of money (that I don’t have) into expensive gear that I’m never going to use.

So, for my first vlog (which can be viewed here), I used a Canon 650D that I borrowed from work for the weekend. The 650D has a handy flip-out screen (almost essential) and Canon’s excellent Dual Pixel autofocusing. This allows the video to track focus on the subject in the viewfinder automatically, and also silently with an STM (Stepping Motor) lens attached. The 18-135mm lens that came with the 650D isn’t really wide enough for vlogging purposes when you are pointing the camera at yourself at arms-length, so I attached a Canon 10-22mm ultar-wide so I could fit everything in. Unfortunately, the 10-22mm isn’t an STM lens, and the constant focusing noise captured on the audio was an issue. To get around this I simply manual focused the 10-22mm and used an f8 aperture so that everything was going to be in focus.

And speaking of audio – anyone will tell you that good video with poor audio is a sure fire way to ruin your vlog. Fortunately, I purchased a Rhode Video Micro external microphone about a year ago for another project. I attached this to the hotshoe of the Canon 650D – which has an external microphone import – for superior audio.

I was pleased with the first vlog, but the 650D with Canon 10-22mm, Canon 18-135mm STM, tripod and Gorillapod added a whole new additional kit I had to carry around with me all afternoon. Quality was great, but weight really was an issue.

For my second vlog (posted here), I decided to lighten the load somewhat (and I no longer had the use of the Canon 650D) by using my Olympus Pen E-P3’s video mode. It shoots 1080i HD at 30fps, and I simply set it in movie mode and let the camera take care of everything. The E-P3 doesn’t have an external microphone input, so I had to use the internal microphone on the camera. Not ideal, but I built a DIY wind-shield for the E-P3 to reduce the wind-noise problem that internal microphones produce. It works surprisingly well, although it looks a bit like a Frankenstein’s monster!

For lenses, I actually used the Olympus 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens – a manual focus fixed aperture f8 lens that works surprisingly well for vlogging. The E-P3 doesn’t have a flippy-out screen so you can see yourself filming, but with the fisheye lens attached you just need the lens element pointing at you and you’re going to be in shot – guaranteed.

This lightened the load considerably, and although the clarity of the video is not in the same league as the Canon, I reckon it’s good enough for vlogging with.

With my third vlog (here) I decided to do it on shooting with my Nikon D70 DLSR, which meant my main digital camera – the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was free to shoot some video. The E-M1 has more video options than the Pen E-P3, as well as an external mic output which meant I could use the Rhode Video Micro again. I took the vertical grip off the camera to lighten the load, and once again attached the 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens for the majority of the filming. I was very happy with this combination; not as light as the E-P3, but with better video quality – and not as heavy as the Canon 650D, with similar video quality. Almost perfect.

I say ‘almost’ because there’s no doubt that the autofocusing is superior with Canon’s dual pixel technology, and if I’m using the E-M1 as my vlogging camera, I can’t use it to shoot with! So there’s my main digital camera out of action!

On my last vlog (here), I shot entirely with the E-P3 again, since the subject of the video – my Nikon F4 – is already a heavy beast of a camera. Once again I wanted to go as light as possible, and once again I was reasonably happy with the compromises I made to capture the footage with the least amount of equipment and weight.

So I guess I’ve got a fairly decent handle on the equipment side of things and am happy with the video I’m capturing. So what about the other technical aspects of creating a vlog? What about the editing?

To be honest, most recently the editing has been an absolute nightmare – and a complete disaster! For my very first vlog I took it easy and used Microsoft Movie Maker. It worked fine, but I did feel limited and wanted to learn a more fully featured editing package. So I moved on to Da-Vinci Resolve 15 for my next two vlogs and really enjoyed the experience. But then came Vlog #4…

For whatever reason, when editing my fourth vlog, Da Vinci Resolve decided not to play nicely. I kept coming up with ‘video offline’ errors all through my edit, even though the video files were linked correctly and where they should be. I looked the problem up on-line, and saw numerous other people with the same issue. There were lots of ‘fixes’ for the problem mentioned, but I tried them all and none of them worked. After a week of this, I got so frustrated I gave up on Da-Vinci Resolve and downloaded Lightworks instead.

I then proceeded to edit the entire video again in Lightworks – only to discover that this time there was a problem with the audio not syncing properly. Again I looked this up on-line, and again I discovered it was a fairly common problem. Aaarrrgghhh.

So I uninstalled Lightworks, and tried again – this time with the old standby, Window’s Movie Maker. But there was one problem with Movie Maker right off the bat – it wouldn’t read the video files from the E-P3! Slightly undeterred, I eventually found a file conveter and converted the E-P3’s video files to something that Movie maker could read (apparently). Spent another night editing the vlog (again), got half-way through, and called it a night. A few days later I opened Movie maker again to continue editing the vlog, but Movie Maker wasn’t reading the converted files this time either! What the heck is going on!?

Was almost – not quite, but almost – ready to give in, having edited the vlog from scratch at least four times over a period of about two weeks! What changed my mind (about giving up) was seeing an advert for Adobe’s Premier Rush video editing trial. I have recently signed back up with Adobe’s photography plan on the Creative Cloud, and I discovered I could download Adobe’s Premier Rush video editing software and use it to upload 3 vlogs to Youtube. After you’ve used 3 uploads you have to then start paying monthly for it 😟

Ok, long story short (too late), I enjoyed using Premier Rush, and it worked perfectly. No ‘media offline, audio synching or video format issues whatsoever. Yahoo! Was a fairly simple programme to edit in to, after I got the hang of how it works. So I’m saved – for now. Just have to figure out what I’ll use after I’ve used my 3 uploads.

So – vlogging. Why bother? Well I’m not sure I have a definitive answer to that question yet. Depending on what you use to capture the video with, it can be a pain having to carry around a lot of extra kit. And even if you go light, it takes twice as long to shoot anything, and a whole heap of creative energy coming up with the video – B-roll, and pieces to-camera. And then there’s the extra files involved, the storage issues, and the video editing. Bit of a headache for someone who has never considered himself a video guy.

But, having said all that, I look back on the final edited video with a great sense of achievement and pride. I really enjoy being able to teach others through video – it’s a powerful medium that has, in many ways, surpassed the written word, especially on-line. Is it a pain in the ass to create all this content? Yes, it is. But, when it’s all created, uploaded and ‘live’ on Youtube, was it all worth it? Yes, I think it was.

Would love to hear your comments and feedback about your own vlogging experiences – and about my vlogs. Follow the links in this post to view them on Youtube and, as they say, please ‘Like’ and Subscribe to follow me and see more content as I produce it 😊