24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm 2.8 IS

I'm torn, but siding with the 24mm 2.8 IS because

1. who shoots at 1.4 with a wide angle lens anyway? Wide angle is typically used for maximum DOF scenes.

2. The image stab of the 2.8 lens gives three stops of faster shutter speed while the 1.4 lens only gives two extra stops of aperature speed.

3. 1/3 the cost

So is the 2.8 IS the winner?

texshooter wrote in post #16333823
2. The image stab of the 2.8 lens gives three stops of faster shutter speed while the 1.4 lens only gives two extra stops of aperature speed.

Uh, that's four times the light gather capability and yes, there is a difference in DOF reduction, even with a wide angle lens.

texshooter wrote in post #16333823
1. who shoots at 1.4 with a wide angle lens anyway? Wide angle is typically used for maximum DOF scenes.

Wide and fast is specifically why I have the 24L II. It is a unique look to have wide angle and shallow DOF in a picture, and I use it quite a bit.

The same fast and wide look is fun with marching bands too.

As opposed to longer focal length, the wider the focal length, the faster you need to be able to (just barely) blur out the bg.

24mm @ f2.8 will always guarantee you a point and shoot looking image, not that there's anything wrong with that if that's what you're after.

get the 1.4 and you will be torn.

I lusted after the 24 f/1.4 II. I couldn't justify the expense. I bought the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM using the same thinking as the OP. I had it about two weeks. I took it back. F/2.8 did not cut it for me. Take a good look through the lens archives. There is a difference. Rather large difference, IMHO.

texshooter wrote in post #16333823
I'm torn, but siding with the 24mm 2.8 IS because

1. who shoots at 1.4 with a wide angle lens anyway? Wide angle is typically used for maximum DOF scenes.

2. The image stab of the 2.8 lens gives three stops of faster shutter speed while the 1.4 lens only gives two extra stops of aperature speed.

Anyone who owns a 24L shoots it @1.4

IS does not give faster shutter speeds. Large apertures do. IS gives the ability to hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

kin2son wrote in post #16334188
As opposed to longer focal length, the wider the focal length, the faster you need to be able to (just barely) blur out the bg.

24mm @ f2.8 will always guarantee you a point and shoot looking image, not that there's anything wrong with that if that's what you're after.

this is pretty much true, same can be said about the 28mm 2.8. If you want lots in focus, it's the way to go.

24 1.4 is a light gathering tool with ability to get a lot in focus and good shutter speeds.

With wides, I rarely use the fast speeds, so between these 2 lenses, I'd get the 2.8 version with IS. It just depends on what you plan to shoot.

Assuming the image stab eliminates 100% of hand shakiness (micro vibration) what is the slowest shutter speed that you can shoot handheld with the 24mm 2.8 IS with no motion blur? I'm not referring to subject movement blur; I'm talking camera movement blur due to breathing, arm sway, wind, etc.

I'm trying to learn how many stops of image stabilization is practically usable. I don't want to buy the 2.8 thinking I can shoot at super slow shutter speeds in dark interiors only to find out 1/4 sec. shutter is the slowest I can go. I'd end up with stops of image stab I can't use.

1.4 comes in handy.

If you're doing interiors, or anything else where you need lots of DoF, the 2.8 makes sense. If you want bokeh, go for the 1.4.

jefzor wrote in post #16334884
If you're doing interiors, or anything else where you need lots of DoF, the 2.8 makes sense. If you want bokeh, go for the 1.4.

+1. A good summary...

The 24L can shoot at f/2.8 too...

Just weigh up if you need IS or not. If the money doesn't matter too much then IS is the deciding factor.

I'd go the f/1.4 regardless (if the cost didn't come it to it). How often are you going to be pushing things to the point that you need IS on a 24mm lens?