Large Aperture or Stabilization?

[PhotoRebel4]

I've covered most of my focal length range this year and plan on upgrading from my kit lens(es) in 2012. This brings up a major dilemma in a couple of my choices.

For general purpose shooting, would you rather have say a lens with f/4 and IS or a f/2.8 without IS?

It seems to me that, in theory at least, they will have the same effect. With the f/2.8, you will be able to shoot with a faster shutter speed and get a clear shot. With the f/4 IS, you can't shoot as fast, but the IS will make up for it and you will get a clear shot. I may be over-simplifying it though...

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the general issue as opposed to on a specific pair of lenses (which is mostly what I've found online).

[ceremus]

IS can certainly afford you a slower shutter speed if you're hand-holding your lens, but if you're trying to freeze action then you need need the faster lens that can give you the higher shutter speed. That is, assuming you're unable to directly improve your lighting through the use of a flash or studio light. Also, the effects of IS can be duplicated with a tripod or even a monopod, IS just happens to be a more convenient, more compact solution.

[zona5101]

all other things being equal, I'd pick a faster aperture over IS. IS is great for controlling/eliminating your camera movement - but when you need shutter speed to stop the subject action the faster aperture is the ticket. ymmv.

[inkista]

I agree: I would typically choose a larger max. aperture over stabilization, they're not really equivalent, except in EV terms. You have to weigh the increase in AF capability (larger max. aperture = more light for the AF system to "see" by), ability to use a faster shutter speed, and the increased size/weight/cost (and a possible performance drop wide-open, since f/2.8 is harder to design for than f/4) against the lower price, compact size/weight, and the convenience of not hauling a monopod along.

If you're shooting low-light fast action, like indoor sports, f/4+IS simply isn't going to work for you, while f/2.8 unstabilized might.

OTOH, if you're shooting outdoors in enough light to achieve the shutter speeds you want with f/4, and you need to go small/light, or can only afford an f/4 lens, you might not notice much difference.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that f/2.8 is generally the borderline aperture to achieve shutter speeds high enough to shoot in available light. With f/4, you're still going to be using slower shutter speeds, and while the stabilization can eliminate camera shake blur, it can't do anything about subject motion blur. So, if your subject is still in low light, then IS is useful.


Canon XT, 24-105 f/4L IS USM, iso 200, f/7.1, 1/8s.

But if the subject's moving fast ...


Canon XT. EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. iso 800, f/4, 1/30s.

There's a reason I purchased an EF 135mm f/2L USM.

[PhotoRebel4]

This is why I love this site! I honestly never thought about the faster shutter speed for freezing action.

I'll really have to take this into consideration, and consider what I'll be using the lenses for the most, although whatever I replace my kit lens with will be a general purpose lens.

Thanks for the input so far! I'd still like to hear what others prefer.

[Doug Sundseth]

For the kinds of subjects I mostly shoot, and for the price, I'd prefer VR. With VR, I can get decent results at 1/2 sec. exposure, which is legitimately about 4 stops better than w/o VR, and I can get a single lens to cover the range I use when hiking.

With fast glass, I'm looking at two or three lenses to cover the same range, only two stops faster, and 4-6 times the cost. In return I give up some IQ, because super-zooms aren't optimized for sharpness.

If I shot sports or weddings, the equation would not be at all the same.

[SwissJon]

Large aperture will give you small DoF.. Nicely blurred backgrounds. Which is why a Pro photographer will shoot a wedding with a 70-200 f2.8 rather than a 70-200 F4 (If that exists)..

Get the 2.8, the quality of your photos will likely improve.. You'll need a tripod at some point, but the 2.8 is likely to give a much better IQ.

Of course, if you can find a 2.8 with VR, you'll be able to shoot hand held at even lower light levels

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by PhotoRebel4

This is why I love this site! I honestly never thought about the faster shutter speed for freezing action.

I'll really have to take this into consideration, and consider what I'll be using the lenses for the most, although whatever I replace my kit lens with will be a general purpose lens.

Thanks for the input so far! I'd still like to hear what others prefer.

You also need to consider the larger aperture for depth of field control. While you can still get some blur in the background with f4, it's certainly more pleasing and more certain at f2.8, or f1.8. The larger aperture gives you the option to blur or not to blur.

That said, why do you have to go either/or when you can have both? I guess I wonder what lenses you are considering where you'd have to make that choice. If you look at my signature, you'll see my most used and favorite lens is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. Some people on some photo forums have tried to convince me that it's priced too high for a non "L" lens, but I strongly disagree with that opinion. This is a well built lens with sterling image quality. The only possible negative is that lack of weather sealing, but since my T1i isn't sealed either, that's irrelevant. I've been pretty careful about building my kit over the last year, and as you can see, 3 of my lenses are EF-S models. All 3 are superior performers. I owned a 17-40 f4 L for 6 months and sold it to buy the 17-55. I wanted the larger aperture and the 15mm longer reach. IQ with the 17-55 is equal or better than the 17-40 L.

This is a natural light photo taken in a poorly lit bar, hand held wide open at 1/13 sec and 3200 ISO. It's one of the better photos I've ever gotten of my niece and her 2 boys. Without the 17-55 I probably wouldn't even have tried it, or I'd have been stuck with just another flash portrait, losing the ambiance provided by the odd lighting of the bar setting (neon, incandescent, fluorescent, holiday decorations, etc.). I did some PP to blur out a very distracting background. Photo taken from only about 4 feet away. The place was too crowded to do anything else.

[PhotoRebel4]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Large aperture will give you small DoF.. Nicely blurred backgrounds. Which is why a Pro photographer will shoot a wedding with a 70-200 f2.8 rather than a 70-200 F4 (If that exists)..

Get the 2.8, the quality of your photos will likely improve.. You'll need a tripod at some point, but the 2.8 is likely to give a much better IQ.

Of course, if you can find a 2.8 with VR, you'll be able to shoot hand held at even lower light levels

Not my current decision, but a 70-200 will be one of my future upgrades. Canon actually makes four models of this lens... an f/4 with and without IS, as well as the f/2.8 with and without IS. Obviously, the 2.8 IS would be the best choice, but it's quite a ways out of my price range. It will take me a while to save up for it, but a $1200-1400 f/4 IS or f/2.8 non-IS would be doable.

Originally Posted by Preeb

You also need to consider the larger aperture for depth of field control. While you can still get some blur in the background with f4, it's certainly more pleasing and more certain at f2.8, or f1.8. The larger aperture gives you the option to blur or not to blur.

That said, why do you have to go either/or when you can have both? I guess I wonder what lenses you are considering where you'd have to make that choice. If you look at my signature, you'll see my most used and favorite lens is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. Some people on some photo forums have tried to convince me that it's priced too high for a non "L" lens, but I strongly disagree with that opinion. This is a well built lens with sterling image quality. The only possible negative is that lack of weather sealing, but since my T1i isn't sealed either, that's irrelevant. I've been pretty careful about building my kit over the last year, and as you can see, 3 of my lenses are EF-S models. All 3 are superior performers. I owned a 17-40 f4 L for 6 months and sold it to buy the 17-55. I wanted the larger aperture and the 15mm longer reach. IQ with the 17-55 is equal or better than the 17-40 L.

I'd love to go with both, but as stated above, my budget doesn't allow for it in some cases, or it isn't available in others. I was debating for quite a while about the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS. A decision that many many people seem to have. Now, I'm actually leaning towards a better walk around lens for my XSi to replace the my 18-55 than those two.