How much does the IS help on the 24-105

Hello,

I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 and selling my 28-135 IS and my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC lens.

I was trying to decide between the 24-105 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8 with the obvious speed advantage going to the F2.8. My questions is shouldn't the IS on the 24-105 more then compensate for the 2 fstop difference (not taking into account the difference in DOF of course)?

Thanks Adam

Hi Adam & welcome to POTN. Your question is a good one and there are lots of opinions on it. Theoretically at the functional limits of the lenses the 24-70 gives you one more stop and this can be of help 'freezing' object motion by allowing for one stop faster shutter speed in the same light as the f/4 at the same ISO (which IS cannot do as it stabalizes the camera not the object). Practically, I think that giving up the advantages of the one extra stop is more than compensated by the benefits of IS, longer reach and less weight of the 24-105. For a general purpose lens I think the 24-105 is the best choice, however if you are doing primarily portrait, studio or wedding type work the 24-70 would probably be your best bet. Either way they are both great lenses!

Thanks Scott. I forgot about the stoppng motion. I've read the threads on the 24-70 vs 24-105 so I won't start that debate in a new thread .

Based on going through all my EXIF info over the last few months, the 24-105 will be the most usable lens to me. I think later on since I am selling the Sigma, I'll probably also add the 17-40. (I think it's criminal to live in NYC and not own a wide angle )

Adam

with a 30d, you might want to think about a 10-22mm instead of the 17-40. living in NYC without a UWA lens is criminal

guess that used to make me a criminal... uwa lenses are quite useful for the tall buildings, and also helps with getting some angle creativity (some shots i took with a borrowed 12-24 where really interesting)

Buying lenses is all part of the fun with photography and doing the research is important given the 'investment' involved. For me I need the faster lens in the longer focal ranges (kids indoor sports events, church productions, school plays etc) so having f/2.8 in the 70-200 was important. In the shorter focal range the slower lens was fine and I wouldn't trade the 24-105 for anything else (until they make a 17-105 ). I'm in NYC in November for a couple of days and expect the 10-22 is all I'll need!

If I had to do it over again I would buy the 70 instead of the 105. I would rather have the 2.8 over IS.

I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

lostdoggy wrote in post #2104190
I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

How bout IS at 24mm? I find it rather a very useful tool getting excellent results down to 1/5 second handheld. The IS is worth it in my opinion.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

I decided to get the 24-105 after a long internal debate. I'm very pleased with the lens. I use the 50 1.4 or Tamron 17-50 2.8, canon 85 1.8 if I need the speed. I love the utility of the 24-105 range.

IS DOES helps !!
I have 1/2" handheld pics, perfectly sharp. I know its hard to beleive, so I will port some photos from home tonight

Get the lens mate, you wont regret it.

lostdoggy wrote in post #2104190
I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

your statement doesn't make a lot of sense. and i suspect you've never used the 24-105L.

IS allows you to hold the lens steadier in a lot lower light...regardless of the lens length.

i've owned both lenses and now i own the 24-70L. i haven't yet fully adapted to not having IS and i find myself frequentlty using too slow a shutter speed in dim light.

with IS i would have gotten sharp shots in the same light and even at longer focal lengths.

now, i prefer the 24-70L and that's what i own but to say that IS isn't beneficial for a 24-105L zoom is crazy talk.

ed rader

I have the same struggle over these two lenses as well... (It seems it's just part of choosing your next lens)...

After my post today with my struggle over the 70-200mm f/4, I found the 70-200mm f/4 is hands down my choice for my needs/money.

Then I moved on to this debate in my head.

For me, I'm leaning more toward the 24-70mm f/2.8L. For a lens in this focal range and how I plan to use it I don't want to lose the DOF of the f/4.

IS would not sway my decision one way or the other on either of these lenses.

lostdoggy wrote in post #2104190
I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

what about shooting in low light. IS give you about 2 stops right, if someone can handhold at 1/60, then a 2 stop difference the same person should be able to handhold at about 1/15.

so do you think that being able to shoot at 105 at 1/15 and increasing the ability of getting a good shot is not worth while?

lostdoggy wrote in post #2104190
I still don't understand WHY anybody would need IS for 105mm lens. if you can't hold a camera still at 1/100 then you need a tripod not IS or cut down on the caffeine. I have no problem shooting at 100mm or slightly longer at 1/60 w/ a little help by hand holding. I think its a waste of good technology and money. For me faster is better hands down.

Read my post. I am talking about much much slower shutter

30D at 24mm, Tv: 1/5s

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'