Never Ending Lens Questions

[Michael_2010]

What is the general consensus on aperture versus image stabilization?

As an example:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

as opposed to the

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[sk66]

General consensus? I don't know.
My opinion is the faster lens won't NEED the image stabilization in more situations and in many situations image stabilization isn't going to help where a faster shutter speed will (subject movement).
Faster lens wins.

[Michael_2010]

Originally Posted by sk66

General consensus? I don't know.
My opinion is the faster lens won't NEED the image stabilization in more situations and in many situations image stabilization isn't going to help where a faster shutter speed will (subject movement).
Faster lens wins.

Do you also think the faster lens would be more versatile and tackle a wider range of lighting conditions?

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

Do you also think the faster lens would be more versatile and tackle a wider range of lighting conditions?

Yes, and it will allow greater control over shallow DOF.
The ONLY benefit of stabilization is that it can help eliminate hand shake blur when you don't have enough shutter speed.

[Michael_2010]

The difference between f/2.8 and f4 is also pretty considerable, right?

[sk66]

It's a full stop of light (the difference between ISO 800 and 1600) and a significant difference in minimum DOF achievable.

Maybe this will help

[Michael_2010]

Over the weekend I was reading reviews of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Most are pretty good, so I decided to see why some people gave it one star. About half a dozen people said they gave it 1, because that was as low as they could go. Each claimed a serious problem with the lens holding focus.

IMO, it doesn't much matter how good the glass is, if the thing won't hold focus. I would really be bent out of shape, if I spent that much on a lens to get crystal clear pictures and it would back off the focus each time the shutter was depressed. Has anyone around here run into that problem with this lens?

[RichardTaylor]

I shoot with a 24-105 F4 IS L (on a 5D)

It is a good general purpose lens and great for shooting static subjects hand held in low light.
It only downside is the distortion at the wide end.

EG: Notice the gutter

@ 24mm

However,
If I am shooting in low light, like a concert, I wished I had a the 70-200 F2.8 lens to give me a bit more freedom in shutter speed selection.
For those conditions I have some F2 primes lenses and more than one body.

I havn't used the 24-70 F2.8 L

I do regularly use other IS lenses.

One thing IS allows you to do is to shoot hand held at slow shutter speeds, and not just in poor light shooting, for artistic purposes.

Example (2)

Canon 350D (Rebel XT) with Canon 17-85 IS lens @ 17mm
ISO 100, 1/8 sec @ F11, hand held

[ravncat]

It's a question of subject matter and use.

The wider aperture collects more light, allowing a shorter shutterspeed at a given iso
it also allows more depth of field isolation

Stabilization acts like a tripod, it allows use of a longer shutterspeed at a given aperture and iso. But this doesn't help if your subject is moving.

Stabilization is thus going to allow more light than a faster aperture. It's almost like having a 3 stop faster lens(depending on focal length and tech), but wthout the depth f field isolation If and only if your subject is completely static - thus I would recmmend it to the handheld landscape/architecture photographer, IS also has use for creative motion blur as above


It's worth noting that a tripod is a better solution, the wider aperture + tripod is more optically versitile but less mobile. If you're concerned with action and creative depth of field, the faster lens is more recommended

[Michael_2010]

But, have you heard of any particular problems with this Canon lens, or did these people just happen to get a bad copy?