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

After reading a thread comparing The 24-70 2.8 with the 24-105 I noticed it came down to two things, whether IS is important to you or whether a fast lens is important to you. Which is more useful and advantageous? Does it depend on your shooting situation or what kind of shots you take?

For me, faster > IS any day, because I do sports and news stuff that always involves movment, and IS will not stop motion in the subject. If I shot things that didn't move much, or panned a lot, then it might be a different story.

I agree, I like the faster lens better too.

yes

cali wrote in post #2037681
Does it depend on your shooting situation or what kind of shots you take?

Absolutely. I have both fast lenses and IS lenses. Different strengths and weaknesses.

Mark

fast is more important than IS for stopping action. that being said i own a 24-105 because of its good range and light wieght as my walk around, i still perfer 2.8 for my serious shots though.

Fast lenses! plus they are a little cheaper than a lens with IS

Livinthalife wrote in post #2037817
Fast lenses! plus they are a little cheaper than a lens with IS

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

Otherwise as stated, horses for courses - but a fast lens with IS is even better.

I have slowly developed the 'need for speed' over almost anything else. I so often find myself in need of light that my motto became "nothing slower than f/2.8"! Every time I tried a f/4 or even f/3.5 I ended up giving it back! Maybe it is just my experience, but if I get IS one day it will have to be f/2.8 or faster...and that means a 500 pound lens. It has been my delemma for some years now. My 70-200 f/2.8 is as heavy as I can manage with my particular handheld shooting style, eg. canoeing, rock climbing, hiking, scuba diving. Just my 2 cents. And finally at 1/15s a moving object will blur...IS or not.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2037690
For me, faster > IS any day, because I do sports and news stuff that always involves movment, and IS will not stop motion in the subject. If I shot things that didn't move much, or panned a lot, then it might be a different story.

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

Many people forget that introducing movement into a shot can give it real life, you can do this with IS to stop the shake and still have a slower than normal shutter speed.

I'm a big fan of IS, however you cant beat fast lenses when object motion and/or shallow DOF are important. Choose what focal lengths you require for the majority of your action shots and invest in an f/2.8 lens in that range (for me that was 70-200 for my kids sporting events and school productions etc). For an everyday use lens I chose IS over speed. Have fun doing your research!

It really totally depends on what you want to shoot. I did not find that I needed the 2.8 24-70 more than the f4 24-105L. I like the panning with the IS that (like the previous poster said) "IS with a slow shutter speed gives great motion blur". So it really depends on your needs.

I've never used a lens with IS. I guess it would be nice.

I have only f/4 zooms. I'm happy with them. However, if I need light sucking ability, I'd pull out my primes.

Fast zooms are big and heavy...

Scuff wrote in post #2037846
Except that the two lenses mentioned at the start of this thread - fast lens is more expensive.....

Otherwise as stated, horses for courses - but a fast lens with IS is even better.

I was thinking about the IS lenses I have looked at, I'm not familiair with the prices of the ones above:o

Livinthalife wrote in post #2037910
I was thinking about the IS lenses I have looked at, I'm not familiair with the prices of the ones above:o

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