sandpiper wrote in post #9554092
Jeez, will you two stop repeating the same arguments over and over. Elisha gets your point and understands where the advantages lie with a faster lens. You are repeatedly pointing out the same things despite Elisha NOT arguing with them.
You are both
making good points that suit your
individual requirements. Not everybody is the same and trying to tell them that your
choice is more flexible is arrogant in the extreme - it doesn't mean that it fits for everybody.
Yes, faster offers more flexibility in some circumstances. As Elisha points out though, one stop isn't a huge difference and it will only help out when the light level is at just that level. Any more light and both lenses will get the shot, then you have that narrow one stop band of light level where the f/2.8 will get the shot but the f/4 won't, then the light level becomes too low for either lens to get the shot. If you are regularly shooting in just
that amount of light then the f/2.8 is great.
You seem to ignore the versatility that 3-4 stop IS gives and dismiss it entirely. I fully accept your point about faster lenses and stopping motion, I have a selection of fast primes for that purpose, which give me significantly more
of an advantage in that area than the 24-70L. However, the IS does
give a huge versatility to the 24-105L over the 24-70L.
Banging on about not needing IS "because you can use a tripod" may be fine for you, but I (and quite possibly Elisha) shoot static subjects in areas where tripods are either not allowed at all, or at best are extremely impractical due to space considerations and the mass of people moving around a confined area. Tripods are great in some circumstances, but not everybody sticks to those shots.
When I shoot in low light, I generally have two bodies in use, one mounted with the 24-105L and the other with a fast prime. This means that I can cope with static OR moving subjects as required. In many cases however, I cannot get sufficient shutter speed with a f/1.8 lens to shoot handheld, but can comfortably do so with the 24-105L at the same (or even longer) focal lengths. If the f/1.8 won't let in enough light, the 24-70L certainly
isn't going to. In such cases, quite common for me, the 24-105L is the only
lens that I can get the shot with, due to the versatility afforded by IS.
PLEASE, try and understand the points that Elisha has been making. Nobody
is arguing that IS works for moving subjects as well as a faster lens does, the point is that there are times IS is the only way to get the job done - please try and accept that. It may not be the case for you and what you shoot, but it certainly is for others.
For myself, and many others, the 24-70L just isn't fast enough to be bought because of its speed. If I need a lens to shoot wide open in low light, then f/2.8 isn't much faster than f/4, it gives very little advantage and loses the IS for other times. It is a compromise, without IS it is poor for handholding purposes and if you need a fast aperture for moving subjects, then fast primes are the way to go.
I could as easily criticise your choice of 24-70L (over a fast prime) the same way you criticise Elisha for getting the 24-105L - by saying "If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will".
The fact is, I am sure you, and Elisha, have bought exactly the right lens for the purposes it will be put to. So please, stop bickering.