How much does the IS help on the 24-105

[adammazza]

Hello,

I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 and selling my 28-135 IS and my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC lens.

I was trying to decide between the 24-105 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8 with the obvious speed advantage going to the F2.8. My questions is shouldn't the IS on the 24-105 more then compensate for the 2 fstop difference (not taking into account the difference in DOF of course)?

Thanks Adam

[sugarzebra]

Hi Adam & welcome to POTN. Your question is a good one and there are lots of opinions on it. Theoretically at the functional limits of the lenses the 24-70 gives you one more stop and this can be of help 'freezing' object motion by allowing for one stop faster shutter speed in the same light as the f/4 at the same ISO (which IS cannot do as it stabalizes the camera not the object). Practically, I think that giving up the advantages of the one extra stop is more than compensated by the benefits of IS, longer reach and less weight of the 24-105. For a general purpose lens I think the 24-105 is the best choice, however if you are doing primarily portrait, studio or wedding type work the 24-70 would probably be your best bet. Either way they are both great lenses!

[adammazza]

Thanks Scott. I forgot about the stoppng motion. I've read the threads on the 24-70 vs 24-105 so I won't start that debate in a new thread ;).

Based on going through all my EXIF info over the last few months, the 24-105 will be the most usable lens to me. I think later on since I am selling the Sigma, I'll probably also add the 17-40. (I think it's criminal to live in NYC and not own a wide angle :))

Adam

[basroil]

with a 30d, you might want to think about a 10-22mm instead of the 17-40. living in NYC without a UWA lens is criminal ;)

guess that used to make me a criminal... uwa lenses are quite useful for the tall buildings, and also helps with getting some angle creativity (some shots i took with a borrowed 12-24 where really interesting)

[sugarzebra]

Buying lenses is all part of the fun with photography and doing the research is important given the 'investment' involved. For me I need the faster lens in the longer focal ranges (kids indoor sports events, church productions, school plays etc) so having f/2.8 in the 70-200 was important. In the shorter focal range the slower lens was fine and I wouldn't trade the 24-105 for anything else (until they make a 17-105 :D). I'm in NYC in November for a couple of days and expect the 10-22 is all I'll need!

[Dan-o]

If I had to do it over again I would buy the 70 instead of the 105. I would rather have the 2.8 over IS.

[lostdoggy]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

[Tsmith]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

How bout IS at 24mm? I find it rather a very useful tool getting excellent results down to 1/5 second handheld. The IS is worth it in my opinion.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/67623892.jpg

[Stan43]

I decided to get the 24-105 after a long internal debate. I'm very pleased with the lens. I use the 50 1.4 or Tamron 17-50 2.8, canon 85 1.8 if I need the speed. I love the utility of the 24-105 range.

[Raj]

IS DOES helps !!
I have 1/2" handheld pics, perfectly sharp. I know its hard to beleive, so I will port some photos from home tonight :-)

Get the lens mate, you wont regret it.

[ed rader]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

your statement doesn't make a lot of sense. and i suspect you've never used the 24-105L.

IS allows you to hold the lens steadier in a lot lower light...regardless of the lens length.

i've owned both lenses and now i own the 24-70L. i haven't yet fully adapted to not having IS and i find myself frequentlty using too slow a shutter speed in dim light.

with IS i would have gotten sharp shots in the same light and even at longer focal lengths.

now, i prefer the 24-70L and that's what i own but to say that IS isn't beneficial for a 24-105L zoom is crazy talk.

ed rader

[GCRollo]

I have the same struggle over these two lenses as well... (It seems it's just part of choosing your next lens)...

After my post today with my struggle over the 70-200mm f/4 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=225974), I found the 70-200mm f/4 is hands down my choice for my needs/money.

Then I moved on to this debate in my head.

For me, I'm leaning more toward the 24-70mm f/2.8L. For a lens in this focal range and how I plan to use it I don't want to lose the DOF of the f/4.

IS would not sway my decision one way or the other on either of these lenses.

[theflyingkiwi]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

what about shooting in low light. IS give you about 2 stops right, if someone can handhold at 1/60, then a 2 stop difference the same person should be able to handhold at about 1/15.

so do you think that being able to shoot at 105 at 1/15 and increasing the ability of getting a good shot is not worth while?

[Raj]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

Read my post. I am talking about much much slower shutter :D

[Lani Kai]

30D at 24mm, Tv: 1/5s
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5569/img3330xt4.jpg
100% crop:
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/8789/cropyy7.jpg
Those of you that claim IS is useless may now go outside and use a non-IS lens to replicate this shot, which demonstrates 3 stops of correction: 1/((24mmx1.6=38.6mm)/8 )=1/4.8, and the shot was taken at 1/5s.
IS most certainly works, and for me it is definitely not a waste of money. Whether or not it matches your shooting style and subjects is another matter, but people that say "IS is a waste" (on any lens, whether it be the 17-85 or the 600) would be mistaken.

[lostdoggy]

That is why they invented tripods and you can port it from lens to lens and you gain 6stops or more if you want.

Both sample shot can be done with bean bags and timer and it will only cost less $10. As a matter of fact you can win one of those prize from the carnival and use it as well.

Increase ISO!!! If you must.

There is certainly a need for IS but not at that low of focal length. Spend more money if your technique is questionable won't solve allyour problems. Improve in your technique will and it is easier on your wallet. But if you must spend then spend away. Its your money.

[Lani Kai]

I hate carrying around and setting up a tripod. Besides, a good tripod and head can cost about as much as the premium one would pay for an IS lens over a non-IS lens (depending on focal length). As for a beanbacg, you would need some kind of surface on which you would set the beanbag. What am I going to do, lie on the ground?
Yes, increasing the ISO would allow me to use a faster shutter speed, but the idea was that I can use a slow shutter speed, handheld, to get the desired effect.

[Salleke]

That is why they invented tripods and you can port it from lens to lens and you gain 6stops or more if you want.

Both sample shot can be done with bean bags and timer and it will only cost less $10. As a matter of fact you can win one of those prize from the carnival and use it as well.

Increase ISO!!! If you must.

There is certainly a need for IS but not at that low of focal length. Spend more money if your technique is questionable won't solve allyour problems. Improve in your technique will and it is easier on your wallet. But if you must spend then spend away. Its your money.

You forget that tripods are not allways allowed and there are situations you
can not carry one with you. Let's say in very crowded places. At partys where
snapshots are in place.

You even forget that older people have more shakey hands then younger
people. There was a time when I could hold a camera very steady but now at
57 it becomes more difficult every day.

For me I only buy most of my lenses with IS. The only lenses I have without IS
is the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8. And the 85 1.8 I'm selling because I almost never
use it on my 30D. It's to long.

[Ruffio]

I believe Lani Kai's first post was spot on. It all depends on your shooting style and what works for you.

[René Damkot]

There is certainly a need for IS but not at that low of focal length.

Why use a tripod at that low a FL then ;)
Sorry, but I'm missing your reasoning....

[Neilyb]

The fact that I do more Landscape / travel shots and not people (there is enough people in the world to look at why take pictures of them?) the IS was more usefull than 1 stop faster....in this way I can use the 3stops of compensation to increase DOF. :)

[Lightstream]

Like my cityscape shot at 1/6 sec, wide open, ISO 3200.

Bump ISO? Naah.

Bring tripod? Yes, certainly. Oh, big problem. I went out earlier in the day, had dinner outside, came across the nice cityscape, wasn't carrying the tripod - oh wow! Ain't no use if I don't have it with me, right? Run home, grab tripod and take the picture? No way...

But that's OK, I am fine with people believing whatever they want to believe too.



The fact that I do more Landscape / travel shots and not people (there is enough people in the world to look at why take pictures of them?) the IS was more usefull than 1 stop faster....in this way I can use the 3stops of compensation to increase DOF. :)

I like your quote about people, which is precisely why I prefer to take pictures of everything else ;)

[AdamJL]

That is why they invented tripods and you can port it from lens to lens and you gain 6stops or more if you want.

Eh? Okay, if I'm going to trek across Patagonia, there's no way I'd carry a tripod with me. IS at any focal length is handy. It's almost essential on a travel lens.
I don't even understand what focal length has to do with it? As Neil pointed out, IS even at 24mm can help your increase DoF.

[amarasme]

The issue is certainly about the type of photography you will be doing.

Shooting people or moving subjects? Go for the faster lens (24-70L).

Still subjects? General purpose lense for travelling? Go for the IS (24-105L). I think IS is definitely handy (I love it in my 70-200), although I agree that it may be less important in wider focal lengths.

Do you need it for both? Then buy both lenses... :) Or any other combination, for example the 24-105L and a faster prime (like the 50 1.4) to help with low light situations with moving subjects, bokeh, etc.

I picked the 24-70L for work, and a 17-40L on a 20D for walk-around or travel as I prefer to travel light...

I think I would choose the 24-105L if it is the only lens that I will have. (Or if I could afford or justify having both the 24-70L and the 24-105L.)

[fivefish]

Why are some people so opposed to IS ? I think people should own and use an IS lens for a while before they give their opinion about IS "lack of use" at short focal lengths.

The 24-105 lens practically lives on my camera. The only time it's taken off is if I need to go Macro, super wide, or for extra reach.

[ed rader]

Why use a tripod at that low a FL then ;)
Sorry, but I'm missing your reasoning....


the point is some people defend their equipment choices with irrational arguments.

ed rader

[ed rader]

what about shooting in low light. IS give you about 2 stops right, if someone can handhold at 1/60, then a 2 stop difference the same person should be able to handhold at about 1/15.

so do you think that being able to shoot at 105 at 1/15 and increasing the ability of getting a good shot is not worth while?


the IS unit in the 24-105L gives you a 3-stop advantage. with that lens i can handhold pretty easily @ 1/8 at the wide end.

ed rader

[chtgrubbs]

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

Wait till your on the other side of 50 years. IS becomes a huge advantage. I have hand-held available light shots as slow as 1/10 second that I never would have attempted without a tripod.

[buckwheat]

IS is a nice added feature...it is never a bad thing. I have both the 24-70L and the 24-105L. I am going to sell my 24-70L solely due to size and weight. But I will miss f/2.8 and even though the 24-105L is nice, I often find myself boosting the ISO and turning on IS and hoping I can squeeze a good image out of an f/4 aperture setting. Oh yeah, I am also over 50yrs and frequently caffeinated so IS is much appreciated. If I can hold a lens steady I would take speed over IS any day! I have had much more of a need for speed than a need for IS.

[ed rader]

IS is a nice added feature...it is never a bad thing. I have both the 24-70L and the 24-105L. I am going to sell my 24-70L solely due to size and weight. But I will miss f/2.8 and even though the 24-105L is nice, I often find myself boosting the ISO and turning on IS and hoping I can squeeze a good image out of an f/4 aperture setting. Oh yeah, I am also over 50yrs and frequently caffeinated so IS is much appreciated. If I can hold a lens steady I would take speed over IS any day! I have had much more of a need for speed than a need for IS.

i'm on the north side of 50 too but they don't call me steady eddy for nothing :D .

ed rader

[ed rader]

IS is a nice added feature...it is never a bad thing. I have both the 24-70L and the 24-105L. I am going to sell my 24-70L solely due to size and weight. But I will miss f/2.8 and even though the 24-105L is nice, I often find myself boosting the ISO and turning on IS and hoping I can squeeze a good image out of an f/4 aperture setting. Oh yeah, I am also over 50yrs and frequently caffeinated so IS is much appreciated. If I can hold a lens steady I would take speed over IS any day! I have had much more of a need for speed than a need for IS.

btw, the downside of IS, imo, is the price and degradation of image quality.

i'm not sure if the bokeh of the 24-105 is average to worse because of IS or the 4x reach but if you look at the 70-200 zooms the IS does not have the best IQ.

ed rader

[theflyingkiwi]

it sounds like IS is good for those who are getting old and need to shoot in really low light and need to keep the ISO down, hence has less noise and it weights less

Otherwise if you really don't care about about that, then the f2.8 verson will do fine.

[Lani Kai]

it sounds like IS is good for those who are getting old and need to shoot in really low light and need to keep the ISO down, hence has less noise and it weights less

Otherwise if you really don't care about about that, then the f2.8 verson will do fine.
I'm still 19 so I wouldn't consider myself old, but anyway, IS would help me just as much as it would help an 80-year-old.
As for the second part of your post, I think that applies to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS/non-IS debate, but when comparing the 24-105 and the 24-70, you have to take into consideration the bokeh, which is better on the 24-70 hands down, and the fact that the 24-70 is physically one stop faster. If faster shutter speeds is of great concern to you then the 24-70 is the better lens, no questions asked. So it's almost like comparing the new 70-200mm f/4L IS with the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS. For me the 4 stops of correction (I think I read it was 4 stops for this lens) definitely outweighs the 1 stop I lose by going from f/2.8 to f/4. However many would disagree with me, particularly those that shoot sports.

[Mike V]

Slower than f2.8 radically effects autofocus on Canon.

Also makes the viewfinder dark.

The 24-105 f4 IS sounds great, but no f2.8 = no purchase for me.

It is a shame they don't have the same lens available with f2.8.

[darktiger]

This would not be a problem if Canon implemented IS into their bodies. I love my 24-105IS btw :)

[Lester Wareham]

Hello,

I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 and selling my 28-135 IS and my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC lens.

I was trying to decide between the 24-105 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8 with the obvious speed advantage going to the F2.8. My questions is shouldn't the IS on the 24-105 more then compensate for the 2 fstop difference (not taking into account the difference in DOF of course)?

Thanks Adam

Hmm f4 to f2.8 is a one stop difference not two.

Apart from all the usual IS vs a faster lens debate I have tested the IS performance on my 24-105 (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm).

The performance of the IS is rather different at the wide end to the long end. At the wide end the advantage was 2-3 stops depending of the sharpness criteria and about 2 stops at the long end.

I found my copy of the 24-105 was very sharp and I am pleased with it, the only bad word I have is it had much higher levels of flare than my 17-40 etc (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/EF%2024-105mm%20f4L%20at%2024mm.htm) so I would be careful about shooting sunsets etc with it. I don't know how the flare performance compares with the 24-70.

I got my one to team with my EF-S 10-22mm for locational travel photography where DOF would be more important than shutter speed.

In general if I need a fast lens I would look for a prime giving f1.8-f1.4 cost effectivly, unless there were a specific reason to use a zoom such as touchline shooting of sports etc.

[ed rader]

Slower than f2.8 radically effects autofocus on Canon.

Also makes the viewfinder dark.

The 24-105 f4 IS sounds great, but no f2.8 = no purchase for me.

It is a shame they don't have the same lens available with f2.8.

sounds like another person who hasn't tried the lens and perpetuates myth.

ed rader

[Scuff]

sounds like another person who hasn't tried the lens and perpetuates myth.

ed rader

Quite right Ed.... The focus speed woth my 24-105 f4 is virtualy instant, can't get much quicker than that.

The brightness of my viewfinder with this lens is brighter than my colleagues 24-70 f2.8 on his 1DmkII. Its all relative. I mean the autofocus on my 24mm f3.5L TS-E takes effin ages :-)

[superdiver]

As of 3:44pm yesterday, mine was in Chicago...Was hoping it would be here today for my trip to Petersgurg in the am, but no lock....

It should be here when I get back Monday though!

[Raj]

Sorry for being late, but as promised, a few shots displaying the strength of IS on this lens. There is more I wanted to share with all so started a separate thread

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2114368#post2114368