Canon 24-70 L: Do I need IS?

Hey all,

I've been an avid traveler/photographer for a long time, but always used point and shoots, and just recently bought my first mirrorless, crop-sensor camera (M50) about a year ago. I plan to upgrade to a full-frame camera within a year or two.

My question is:

I primarily shoot portraits and landscapes, and want to pick up the Canon 24-70 L series lens. When I go full-frame, I'll pick up the 16-35 L, but I have an 11-22 equivalent that serves that purpose for now. Money is tight and I can really only afford to buy (1) L series lens at the moment.

I understand the difference between the f2.8 and the f4.0 variations in regards to depth of field and low light capabilities, but what I'm really stuck on is:

For shooting landscapes and portraits, do I need IS?

I shoot mostly in daylight, and want to be sure that my images are crisp and clear, without having to use a tripod to stabilize the camera.

Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks!

Dave

I would buy the IS versions purely because i hate juggling with tripods

Thanks. That's what I was thinking too, but there seems to be some debate over how much of a difference IS actually makes when it comes to sharpness, when comparing the f2.8 and the f4.0.

Any thoughts?

I know i couldn't hand hold inside a church or castle at 1/10th of a second with an f2.8 lens, but i could if i had I.S. That's the difference. If all your stuff is outdoors with no restriction on tripod use, then go fast. I just wish my 17-40 has I.S. to give me a bit more versatility indoors.

I wouldn't bother with IS at those focal lengths for portraits. At low shutter speeds you'll have to worry about your subject(s) moving and IS can't help there.

If you want to shoot handheld landscapes in low light then that's where IS can certainly help. A large aperture helps too (F/2.8 won't give you DoF problems for landscapes), so ideally you want both.

There's no need for L lenses. Tamron have an equiv F/2.8 VC zoom. I use the Canon 35 F/2 IS for those situations and if you can live with a prime then you get even better results, and Tamron similarly have a 35 F/1.8 VC. If you need wider then Canon have 24mm and 28mm F/2.8 IS primes, too. All are FF compatible.

I shoot off a tripod usually with my shorter lenses and for some of the typical shutter speeds I use IS would be no help. my 16-35 and 24-70 do not have IS but of course I wish they did because there are times I shoot handheld landscapes at quick shutter speeds in low light which means I need to use a higher ISO.

so I don't "need" IS but of course I wish I had it. as a photography you need to determine your needs because photography is all about trade-offs.

I have been an IS die hard since going digital in 2005. I has a 24-105 IS and was extremely reluctant to get the 24-70 2.8 II. I finally did and never missed a beat. As long as you are fairly steady and press gently press the shutter all is well.

There is no scenario in which I cursed my IS lens because of the extra weight of the IS mechanism. Having IS is always better than not having it. I carried a Tamron 24-70 over a Canon because of the IS.

Go for IS.

Better to have something you don't need, than to need something you don't have.

It's a great lens, the value of IS is diminished on the wide end. I don't miss IS on his lens

davidupatterson wrote in post #18797428
For shooting landscapes and portraits, do I need IS?

No.


Is it useful? Yes.

As a hobby shooter my 24-70L II is my most used lens. On my 6D full frame I have never felt I needed IS as I am comfortable going quite high on my ISO setting if needed in a darker environment. If I was selling my photos maybe having IS would be necessary.

davidupatterson wrote in post #18797440
Thanks. That's what I was thinking too, but there seems to be some debate over how much of a difference IS actually makes when it comes to sharpness, when comparing the f2.8 and the f4.0.

Any thoughts?

In general, IS provides 2-4EV of advantage in ability to handhold a lens with minimal motion blur, depending upon the lens design. Canon tells how much advantage when they introduce a lens. I have found that the advantage is not merely 'for telephoto' but is indeed apparent for WA FL as well.

High ISO still doesn't bring anything good for portraits and landscapes.
Good landscapes comes with f8-16 and low ISO, IS is handy under not just sun 8n the sky light.
Good portraits are done with balance of ambient light at 1/30. This is where IS comes to play.
My 28-75 2.8 in unused after I switched to 24-105 f4 IS.

On the other side of the coin I got the 24-70 F4 IS as part of the kit with my 7D2. I never tried it because I sold it to a friend the next day. He said it was worth every penny. Sharp. Another lens I regret selling to secure funds for other toys.