Image Stabilization is the Question

[Phil Light]

There have been a thousand posts about "which lens?" but for me it comes down to which feature is more valuable IS, or wider aperture?

Yes, I'm trying to narrow it down to one of these two, The EF 24-70 f2.8L or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. I've never owned or shot with an Image Stabilized lens. Is it worth sacrificing f2.8? And yes, I know it depends on what kind of shooting, indoor, outdoor, hand-held, tripod, blah, blah blah, ;) but what I think I'm really asking is how much do you fall in love with IS? Once you go IS, you never go back? :)

I've spent the past hour or so re-reading stickys and searching threads but I haven't run across exactly what I want to know. I apologize up front for asking another "which lens should I buy?" question. :cry: It's just that I need input kind of soon.

[calicokat]

Get the best of both worlds, the 17-55 F/2.8 IS

[jjmucker]

im kind of in the same situation. i will be getting my hands on a 70-200 fairly soon. i will most likely be buying the f4 IS, BUT only because the 2.8 nonIS version is too bulky. if they were the same size i would probably go for the 2.8 non IS. personally i would rather faster glass than IS. what would be a dream would be the 2.8 IS the same size as the f4 version. mmmmmm

[nicksan]

There have been a thousand posts about "which lens?" but for me it comes down to which feature is more valuable IS, or wider aperture?

Yes, I'm trying to narrow it down to one of these two, The EF 24-70 f2.8L or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. I've never owned or shot with an Image Stabilized lens. Is it worth sacrificing f2.8? And yes, I know it depends on what kind of shooting, indoor, outdoor, hand-held, tripod, blah, blah blah, ;) but what I think I'm really asking is how much do you fall in love with IS? Once you go IS, you never go back? :)

I've spent the past hour or so re-reading stickys and searching threads but I haven't run across exactly what I want to know. I apologize up front for asking another "which lens should I buy?" question. :cry: It's just that I need input kind of soon.

Hmmm...for me it was a choice between 2 IS lenses...the 17-55 and 24-105.

Having IS is a great thing for me. Ridiculous shutter speeds!!!

After the 17-55 I went for the 70-200 F/4L IS. Gotta have my IS!!!

[John E]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.

[Phil Light]

Get the best of both worlds, the 17-55 F/2.8 IS

Hmmmm, I haven't seriously considered that, mainly because the focal length almost matches my "awesome" kit lens. ;) I guess I was hoping to get a little more telephoto. I can't say I've totally ruled this one out though.

[nicksan]

im kind of in the same situation. i will be getting my hands on a 70-200 fairly soon. i will most likely be buying the f4 IS, BUT only because the 2.8 nonIS version is too bulky. if they were the same size i would probably go for the 2.8 non IS. personally i would rather faster glass than IS. what would be a dream would be the 2.8 IS the same size as the f4 version. mmmmmm


Same here. The size is what did it for me with the F/4L IS. Definitely! I guess for the OP it's similar with the 70-200 F/2.8L non-IS vs. F/4 IS.

I mean, sure, nothing will make up for the wider aperture on the 2.8 and the types of pics you can potentially take with that wider aperture, but just talking about the 70-200 here for a moment, the 3 to 4 stops IS really was the key for me. (Compared to the 2.8 non-IS) I knew I could get ridiculous shutter speeds with that.

Same thing as the 17-55. Constant 2.8 PLUS IS...so compare that with the 24-105 f/4L IS...to me it was clear!

[Phil Light]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.

Oh you HAD to go and do that to me, didn't you? :D

[nicksan]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.

That would be one sweet and EXPENSIVE lens!!!

[StealthLude]

I LOVE lenses with image stabilization. There is a $ premium for them, and ive used them but dont own any at the current moment.

But when the time comes, im selling my 70-200 f/4 and Tamron lens for the 70-200 2.8 Is, and the 17-55 IS EF-S lens.

Ive used my uncles 70-200 2.8 IS for a wedding and I must say, shooting w/o a tripod in low light and that $500 extra you paid is the best insurance EVER in a lens. I got shots that would NOT have been possible w/o IS that night.

[sugarzebra]

You need to know where in your focal range you 'need' the fastest lens....for me that was in the 70-200 range (indoor kids sports, church & school productions etc) so I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Most of my needs below 70mm were outside, general shooting, and f/4 was fine, hence the 24-105. Once you've tried IS you will find (IMO) that IS is well worth giving up one stop for. Having said all that.....seriously think about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS :D

[jjmucker]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.


really. any links or anymore info on that. bet that would go for an absolute fortune

[Phil Light]

I LOVE lenses with image stabilization...

This is pretty much what I "think" I would think.

Is there a downside to IS? Are there times when it can mess up a shot? I heard that you should turn it off when you are using a tripod - why? How could that cause a problem?

[crn3371]

The only downside of IS is that it spoils you. Of the two lenses you mentioned, I'd rather have 3 stops of IS, as opposed to 1 stop of aperture. Calicokat nailed it, the 17-55 lets you have your cake, and eat it too! The only reason I'd still maybe consider the 24-105 is that it gives you some extra reach without having to stap on that honking 35-350!

[Phil Light]

...it gives you some extra reach without having to stap on that honking 35-350!

You read me like a book, didn't you? As much as I like that barbell, sometimes I just have to take it off. If I go with the 24-105 and like it as much as I think I will, I may consider selling the 35-350 and looking for a long IS to replace it. Something like the 100-400L IS :D

[Jim G]

Eh, for me at least wider aperture beats IS any day - I need fast shutter speeds for low light work of performers and IS won't stop them creating motion blur whereas faster shutter speeds will. No contest for me - aperture comes first... otherwise I'd have useless lenses for a lot of what I do. Though having both would always be nice ;)

[ed rader]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.

don't you think the 24-85L f2.8 IS will be released first :D ?

i doubt that canon releases an f2.8 L zoom that starts at 17mm. one huge advantage FF has over 1.6 crop is you can get the 24mm FOV without having to buy a special SWA lens, and 24mm (FF) is about as wide as i'll ever need.

17mm would be a deal killer for me.

ed rader

[SYS]

And yes, I know it depends on what kind of shooting, indoor, outdoor, hand-held, tripod, blah, blah blah, ;) but what I think I'm really asking is how much do you fall in love with IS? Once you go IS, you never go back? :)



But the question of the NEED for IS has everything to do with what kind of shooting and other blahs. Falling in love has nothing to do with it. :)

Speaking for myself -- and speaking in generality -- aperture is more important than IS. Aperture is the life of photography, the channel where light traverses....

[ed rader]

There have been a thousand posts about "which lens?" but for me it comes down to which feature is more valuable IS, or wider aperture?

Yes, I'm trying to narrow it down to one of these two, The EF 24-70 f2.8L or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. I've never owned or shot with an Image Stabilized lens. Is it worth sacrificing f2.8? And yes, I know it depends on what kind of shooting, indoor, outdoor, hand-held, tripod, blah, blah blah, ;) but what I think I'm really asking is how much do you fall in love with IS? Once you go IS, you never go back? :)

I've spent the past hour or so re-reading stickys and searching threads but I haven't run across exactly what I want to know. I apologize up front for asking another "which lens should I buy?" question. :cry: It's just that I need input kind of soon.


i had the 24-105L and replaced it with the 24-70L so i "went back". another consideration is what camera are you using?

i think the 24-105L would be much better on FF because it is the ideal range and the full size sensor renders greater DOF.

this question is asked at least once a week and there is no "right" answer tho polls have shown that the 24-105L is a more popular lens.

ed rader

[SoundsGood]

Or wait for the rumored 17-70 f/2.8 IS "L" to come out this Spring.
Any truth to this rumor, or was this just a joke?

[John E]

Someone mentioned in the "Lens Rumors" section that they "heard from a good source" that canon is going to release a 17-80 f/2.8 IS "L". Of course, it may just be bunk, but what a great lens this would be! It would sell like hotcakes and they could charge $2000 for it.

[MDJAK]

Not sure the OP's original question has been answered.

Is IS important? To me, it is very important as I don't have steady hands.

That said, it is NOT important to me at focal lengths under 100mm.

It is only important when zooming in on distant objects, or priming in (if that's a word) on distant objects where the least bit of shake is greatly magnified.

On a 24-70 or even 105 focal length lens, IS does not really play a role as far as I'm concerned.

Now, as to the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 debate, both are excellent lenses. I own the 24-70 and may, one day, also own the 24-105, but not because of the IS and not in spite of it; merely because it has slightly greater reach and is considerably lighter. It is also, however, less well constructed than the 24-70; thus it's lighter weight.

If Canon were to come out with a 17 to whatever was quoted above, I think it would be a dog.

mark