What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens?

cali · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

After reading a thread comparing The 24-70 2.8 with the 24-105 I noticed it came down to two things, whether IS is important to you or whether a fast lens is important to you. Which is more useful and advantageous? Does it depend on your shooting situation or what kind of shots you take?

tsaraleksi · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

For me, faster > IS any day, because I do sports and news stuff that always involves movment, and IS will not stop motion in the subject. If I shot things that didn't move much, or panned a lot, then it might be a different story.

shutterbug6500 · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

I agree, I like the faster lens better too.

lensview · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Mark_Cohran · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cali

Does it depend on your shooting situation or what kind of shots you take?

Absolutely. I have both fast lenses and IS lenses. Different strengths and weaknesses.

Mark

Billginthekeys · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

fast is more important than IS for stopping action. that being said i own a 24-105 because of its good range and light wieght as my walk around, i still perfer 2.8 for my serious shots though.

Livinthalife · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Fast lenses! plus they are a little cheaper than a lens with IS

Scuff · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livinthalife

Fast lenses! plus they are a little cheaper than a lens with IS

Except that the two lenses mentioned at the start of this thread - fast lens is more expensive.....

Otherwise as stated, horses for courses - but a fast lens with IS is even better.

buckwheat · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

I have slowly developed the 'need for speed' over almost anything else. I so often find myself in need of light that my motto became "nothing slower than f/2.8"! Every time I tried a f/4 or even f/3.5 I ended up giving it back! Maybe it is just my experience, but if I get IS one day it will have to be f/2.8 or faster...and that means a 500 pound lens. It has been my delemma for some years now. My 70-200 f/2.8 is as heavy as I can manage with my particular handheld shooting style, eg. canoeing, rock climbing, hiking, scuba diving. Just my 2 cents. And finally at 1/15s a moving object will blur...IS or not.

Scuff · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsaraleksi

For me, faster > IS any day, because I do sports and news stuff that always involves movment, and IS will not stop motion in the subject. If I shot things that didn't move much, or panned a lot, then it might be a different story.

What about the panned shots with a slow shutter speed to give great motion blur! - thats what mode 2 IS is for.

Many people forget that introducing movement into a shot can give it real life, you can do this with IS to stop the shake and still have a slower than normal shutter speed.

sugarzebra · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

I'm a big fan of IS, however you cant beat fast lenses when object motion and/or shallow DOF are important. Choose what focal lengths you require for the majority of your action shots and invest in an f/2.8 lens in that range (for me that was 70-200 for my kids sporting events and school productions etc). For an everyday use lens I chose IS over speed. Have fun doing your research!

Permagrin · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

It really totally depends on what you want to shoot. I did not find that I needed the 2.8 24-70 more than the f4 24-105L. I like the panning with the IS that (like the previous poster said) "IS with a slow shutter speed gives great motion blur". So it really depends on your needs.

KevC · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

I've never used a lens with IS. I guess it would be nice.

I have only f/4 zooms. I'm happy with them. However, if I need light sucking ability, I'd pull out my primes.

Fast zooms are big and heavy...

Livinthalife · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuff

Except that the two lenses mentioned at the start of this thread - fast lens is more expensive.....

Otherwise as stated, horses for courses - but a fast lens with IS is even better.

I was thinking about the IS lenses I have looked at, I'm not familiair with the prices of the ones above

Permagrin · 25th of September 2006 (Mon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livinthalife

I was thinking about the IS lenses I have looked at, I'm not familiair with the prices of the ones above

Actually, both at BHphoto & Amazon.com they are the same price or the 24-70 was lower. So you weren't incorrect.

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#1
cali Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 266	What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? After reading a thread comparing The 24-70 2.8 with the 24-105 I noticed it came down to two things, whether IS is important to you or whether a fast lens is important to you. Which is more useful and advantageous? Does it depend on your shooting situation or what kind of shots you take? __________________ 20D, 17-85 kit lens, 70-200 F4, 50 1.4, Amvona AT CF 994 Tripod, Manrotto Monopod that I have never used and a 580EX Flash

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#2
tsaraleksi Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Greencastle/Lafayette Indiana, USA Posts: 1,653 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? For me, faster > IS any day, because I do sports and news stuff that always involves movment, and IS will not stop motion in the subject. If I shot things that didn't move much, or panned a lot, then it might be a different story. __________________ --Alex Editorial Portfolio \|\| Elan 7ne+BG \|\|5D mk. II \|\|1D mk. II N \|\| EF 17-40 F4L \|\|EF 24-70 F2.8L\|\|EF 35 1.4L \|\| EF 85 1.2L \|\|EF 70-200 2.8L\|\| EF 300 4L IS[on loan]\| \|Speedlite 580EX \|\| Nikon Coolscan IV ED\|\|

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#3
shutterbug6500 Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: USA Posts: 108	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? I agree, I like the faster lens better too. __________________ Canon 20D; Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM; Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM; Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM;Canon 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro; Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM; Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM; Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8; Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#4
lensview User is banned from forums Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NY Posts: 524	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? yes

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#6
Billginthekeys Billy the kid Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Islamorada, FL Posts: 7,178	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? fast is more important than IS for stopping action. that being said i own a 24-105 because of its good range and light wieght as my walk around, i still perfer 2.8 for my serious shots though. __________________ Mr. the Kid. Go Canes! My Gallery My Gear what the L. just go for it.

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#7
Livinthalife Cream of the Crop Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Austin,TX Posts: 5,097 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? Fast lenses! plus they are a little cheaper than a lens with IS __________________ -Andy- Canon 5DMKII 85 1.8 Rokinon 8 FE 24-105 F4 IS L 580EX 70-200 2.8 100 2.8 L ...:::My Website:::...

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#9
buckwheat Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 229	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? I have slowly developed the 'need for speed' over almost anything else. I so often find myself in need of light that my motto became "nothing slower than f/2.8"! Every time I tried a f/4 or even f/3.5 I ended up giving it back! Maybe it is just my experience, but if I get IS one day it will have to be f/2.8 or faster...and that means a 500 pound lens. It has been my delemma for some years now. My 70-200 f/2.8 is as heavy as I can manage with my particular handheld shooting style, eg. canoeing, rock climbing, hiking, scuba diving. Just my 2 cents. And finally at 1/15s a moving object will blur...IS or not. __________________ 5D/35L/50 1.4/85 1.8/100 Macro/ 16-35L/24-70L/24-105L

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#11
sugarzebra Cream of the Crop Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oshawa, Ontario Posts: 8,912 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? I'm a big fan of IS, however you cant beat fast lenses when object motion and/or shallow DOF are important. Choose what focal lengths you require for the majority of your action shots and invest in an f/2.8 lens in that range (for me that was 70-200 for my kids sporting events and school productions etc). For an everyday use lens I chose IS over speed. Have fun doing your research! __________________ Scott Website & Blog

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#12
Permagrin High Priestess of all I survey Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: day dreamin' Posts: 77,798	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? It really totally depends on what you want to shoot. I did not find that I needed the 2.8 24-70 more than the f4 24-105L. I like the panning with the IS that (like the previous poster said) "IS with a slow shutter speed gives great motion blur". So it really depends on your needs. __________________ .. It's Permie's world, we just live in it! ~CDS

25th of September 2006 (Mon)	#13
KevC Goldmember Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: to Posts: 3,154 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: What's more important: Image Stabilization or a fast lens? I've never used a lens with IS. I guess it would be nice. I have only f/4 zooms. I'm happy with them. However, if I need light sucking ability, I'd pull out my primes. Fast zooms are big and heavy... __________________ Too much gear... take nothing but pictures .... kill nothing but time .... leave nothing but footprints

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Image stabilization or not?	Aengis	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	60	26th of May 2007 (Sat) 07:01
Image Stabilization	Parker1332	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	7	17th of September 2006 (Sun) 22:57
image stabilization	rklepper	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	9	19th of August 2005 (Fri) 12:28
Image stabilization - why on lens?	kram	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	38	18th of July 2005 (Mon) 23:30
Need to know...Image Stabilization	tmunson	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	3	3rd of May 2005 (Tue) 20:11