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

[braduardo]

For me lately, I have been wanting more DOF, so stopping way down doesn't really help me out all that much. For example, with the 50mm f1.8, I can get decent low-light shots, but when the DOF is razor-thin, it doesn't help me out all that much. Of course it is a matter of "different strokes for different folks", but for me, I would often rather have the IS (which I WISH I had right now). If I'm at the zoo taking long shots, I can always bump up the ISO to get the extra stop, since I almost always shoot at ISO 200, but if It's been a long day, what I really need is something to keep me steady so I don't need to get out the monopod.

[Scuff]

Originally Posted by Peregrin

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

Sounds like a great deal - list prices in the UK - 24-70 f2.8 = £1139, 24-105 f4 = £869

That is a big difference ...............

[braduardo]

Try the PSAUG code for B&H. I used it earlier and they were the same price (US of course).

[Permagrin]

Originally Posted by Scuff

Sounds like a great deal - list prices in the UK - 24-70 f2.8 = £1139, 24-105 f4 = £869

That is a big difference ...............

WOW, our highest prices are $1149.95 (604.849 GBP) on both these models. I'm just continually amazed at the prices you guys have to pay over there!

[Steve Parr]

I do concert photography, and have learned one undeniable truth: Light is life. A fast lens, for the type of photography I do, beats out IS any day...

[SimonG]

Originally Posted by Scuff

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

Sure, except that the lens with IS mentioned by the OP (24-105 L) doesn't have IS that supports panning.

Originally Posted by Scuff

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

Depends on where you are. Here in Canada the prices are very close, with the 24-70 L being slightly cheaper... I believe that's pretty much the same in the US as well.

[Permagrin]

Originally Posted by SimonG

Sure, except that the lens with IS mentioned by the OP (24-105 L) doesn't have IS that supports panning. .

HA! I had to laugh and go look....shows how much I use that for panning (mostly my 100-400 for that respect)....definitely will make me think twice before I recommend a lens for panning IS!

[Scuff]

[quote=SimonG;2038103]Sure, except that the lens with IS mentioned by the OP (24-105 L) doesn't have IS that supports panning.

Simon - you are not wrong, but I was responding to the photographer who stated that he didn't need IS as he shoots sports. Most of the sports that you need to pan for, such as motorsports, running etc, usualy require a longer lens to get you close to the action - hence mode 2 for the longer lenses.

[tsaraleksi]

Originally Posted by Scuff

Sure, except that the lens with IS mentioned by the OP (24-105 L) doesn't have IS that supports panning.

Simon - you are not wrong, but I was responding to the photographer who stated that he didn't need IS as he shoots sports. Most of the sports that you need to pan for, such as motorsports, running etc, usualy require a longer lens to get you close to the action - hence mode 2 for the longer lenses.

Except that I specifically said that I didn't do much panning, and therefore wasn't concerned. If I really had a crushing desire to pan some shots, I'd buy a monopod, even a nice one is cheaper than the extra $600 for IS on the 70-200.

[SimonG]

Fair enough Scuff... I was just making that point since the OP had only mentioned the two lenses, and I didn't want them to get the wrong idea. For what it's worth, the manual doesn't say that the IS on the 24-105 L will completely screw up panning shots, it just states that the IS "might not be fully effective", whatever that means.

By the way, I didn't notice that both of those quotes were your posts until I submitted my reply... so please don't think that I was intentionally picking on you.

[liza]

I shoot a lot of low light stuff, so faster lenses are a must for me. And I prefer primes to zooms just for that reason.

[Scuff]

[quote=tsaraleksi;2038150]

Originally Posted by Scuff

Except that I specifically said that I didn't do much panning, and therefore wasn't concerned. If I really had a crushing desire to pan some shots, I'd buy a monopod, even a nice one is cheaper than the extra $600 for IS on the 70-200.

Fair point - in fact I use a monopod regularly, works great in conjunction with IS

To me IS gives more flexibilty. Of course you can turn it off. I presume you are quoting the price of the 70-200 non- IS, exept that Canon do not make it anymore! So the extra $600 doesn't come into it.

I respect your choice - but we are competing in a tough market, anything that helps to give the 'edge' whether it be for panning or freezing motion earns cash. So I choose versatility.

[BryanP]

fast lens

stop action and also the option to isolate your subject more

[Scuff]

Originally Posted by SimonG

Fair enough Scruff... I was just making that point since the OP had only mentioned the two lenses, and I didn't want them to get the wrong idea. For what it's worth, the manual doesn't say that the IS on the 24-105 L will completely screw up panning shots, it just states that the IS "might not be fully effective", whatever that means.

By the way, I didn't notice that both of those quotes were your posts until I submitted my reply... so please don't think that I was intentionally picking on you.

No problem Simon - I enjoy the debates and respect everyones views. Besides, I am used to being picked on - it comes with the teritory.

[liza]

[quote=Scuff;2038178]

Originally Posted by tsaraleksi

To me IS gives more flexibilty. Of course you can turn it off. I presume you are quoting the price of the 70-200 non- IS, exept that Canon do not make it anymore! So the extra $600 doesn't come into it.

Since when did Canon cease production on the 70-200 non-IS?