New lens or stabilizer?

so i currently have enough money to either get one of the 2, I only have a tripod for stabilization purposes, and a telephoto and a wide angle lens wise, i do an equal amount of photo and video, and can either get a glidecam hd2000, or a canon 24-105, any suggestions?

15-85 over the 24-105. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better IS, range fits better with what you already have.

I Love Cats wrote in post #16483300
15-85 over the 24-105. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better IS, range fits better with what you already have.

doesn't the 24-105 have faster af?

how often do you think "i wish i had a glidecam hd2000 for this shot"?

how often do you think "i wish i had a lens betweeen 16 and 70mm for this shot"?

whichever is higher do that

Jerobean wrote in post #16483939
how often do you think "i wish i had a glidecam hd2000 for this shot"?

how often do you think "i wish i had a lens betweeen 16 and 70mm for this shot"?

whichever is higher do that

do you know any good cheap stabilizers that i could maybe fit both into my budget? (around 600 ish

I read somewhere today someone extolling the virtues of the Opteka Stabilser, that's around £140, and the Canon 15-85 is a cracking lens for a crop camera.

I know nothing about stabilizers

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16483190
so i currently have enough money to either get one of the 2, I only have a tripod for stabilization purposes, and a telephoto and a wide angle lens wise, i do an equal amount of photo and video, and can either get a glidecam hd2000, or a canon 24-105, any suggestions?

Heya,

Do you really need a lens that is already mostly covered by your current setup?

Unless you're getting the 24-105 to use it as specifically as a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, the other noteworthy focal lengths are already delivered by your other lenses. That's an expensive lens to basically only be covering some of it's focal lengths.

Very best,

not sure I'd call 24-105 expensive.

BNIB all day long for 6xx from people selling it from a kit purchase.

also, just because it overlaps something he has, doesn't mean that it's 'wasted'

Jerobean wrote in post #16484490
not sure I'd call 24-105 expensive.

BNIB all day long for 6xx from people selling it from a kit purchase.

also, just because it overlaps something he has, doesn't mean that it's 'wasted'

No one said it was `wasted' nor implied it.

He already has the 70-200L f4 lens. He's looking at another L f4 lens, with similar focal lengths.

The question stems from wondering if spending the money on the 24-105mm L f4, is worth while knowing he has the 70-200L f4, for the gains in focal lengths, or if he's better off looking at something in the 24-70mm range, by Canon, or Tamron, etc, in a similar price range.

Very best,

Besides, since the OP has a crop camera, a 15-85 or a 17-55 (or 55) would be a better choice - similar IQ, but less money and smaller.

Lbsimon wrote in post #16484638
Besides, since the OP has a crop camera, a 15-85 or a 17-55 (or 55) would be a better choice - similar IQ, but less money and smaller.

does the 15-85 have better af and is than the 17-55?

Those lenses that you have would be somewhat uncommon to use for video.

I would get an 18-55mm STM cheap and also the glidecam. You'll get great steady results. When budget allows, upgrade to the 17-55mm for better quality.

As far as I know, they are close.

As many already said here, it is a trade-off between a lower F-stop and the range. My choice was the range, as it allowed me not to bring an ultra wide on travel, reducing the overall weight of the bag. If you need a shallow DoF, you may want the other lens.