If You Had To Choose: 1 more f stop or IS?

tough choice, too bad there arent any affordable f2.8 IS lenses in a decent range out there... I love my 28-135, just wish it were more like a 24-200 f2.8IS lol

24-70L for me too. I just got this yesterday and oh bebe

Depends on what type of low-light shooting you'll be doing.

Do you need to freeze subject movement as much as possible? Then forget about the IS. IS is for correcting handshake blur caused by an insufficiently low shutter speed.

Or are you more of a still-subject shooter? In that case, IS can be very helpful.

They're both designed for different needs. One helps shots at low shutter speeds (up to 3-stops than usual), the other allows you to bump the shutter speed up (an extra stop).

Other factors to consider are weight and bokeh. Naturally larger maximum aperture lenses will weigh more. In terms of bokeh, f/2.8 often gives better results.

ed rader wrote in post #2711566
the 24-105L gives you a 2-stop advantage over the 24-70L.

Bit of an incomplete endorsement by ignoring subject movement .. more accurate to say that it will steady hands by about two stops if shooting static subjects.

For stopping action or tripod use the 24-70 has the advantage .. and the advantage in image quality as well. Bokeh baby

I tried both and went with the 24-105. Since it's a zoom, I wanted it to have more range. If I want Bokeh, I use the 50mm 1.4 or 70-200mm 2.8. You are doing a lot of studio work lately and have the 85mm 1.8 and are getting the 50 1.4 so you are covered on the wider aperatures for that. I use the 24-105 in the studio and love it. To each their own I guess. OTH if I wanted creamy Bokeh, I'd get the 85mm 1.2.

Az2Africa wrote in post #2712279
I tried both and went with the 24-105. Since it's a zoom, I wanted it to have more range. If I want Bokeh, I use the 50mm 1.4 or 70-200mm 2.8. You are doing a lot of studio work lately and have the 85mm 1.8 and are getting the 50 1.4 so you are covered on the wider aperatures for that. I use the 24-105 in the studio and love it. To each their own I guess. OTH if I wanted creamy Bokeh, I'd get the 85mm 1.2.

I have to say I personally agree with that mentality. Although f/2.8 is undoubtably useful to have, it still often isn't fast enough.

For this reason (and weight), I got the 70-200 f/4 IS instead of the f/2.8 IS. I did however get the 17-55, because as a walkaround (and overall my most used lens), I find it critical to have both f/2.8 and IS.

Apart from that, I'm happy to leave those low-light situations to the 35, 50, 85 & 135.

IS is far more useful with a longer focal length. I use the 24-70 and have never wished that it had IS. On the other hand, I use IS frequently with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, especially when I put my 1.4x extender between the lens and the camera.

When choosing between the 24-70 and 24-105, consider the design of the lens hood. The hood mounts to the non-moving body of the lens on the 24-70 and not to the portion of the lens that extends when zooming. The lens extends when going toward the wide end. Thus, the very deep hood is ideal for all focal lengths.

In addition - and most important for me - the hood for the 24-70 provides a LOT more physical protection for the lens (against the inevitable knocks it will take) than one which mounts to the moving portion of the lens.

This post from the current "Handheld Tips" thread over on the Photography Talk Forum:

"gofor hit it on the head. It's the same as a target shooter's technique. I did a fair amount of target shooting in the past so for me it's instinctive, legs spread slightly, elbows (both) in tight, left hand under the lens at the zoom/focus point, breathe out, hold it--shoot.
I've read where clinical tests have shown that top-notch target shooters hearts actually slow down right before they shoot. Not sure that happens to me but with IS, I can get some decent shots 2 or 3 stops below normal shutter speeds."

No contest.
The extra stop helps with both camera shake and subject movement
IS just affects camera shake.

I'd choose the stop any day.

I have both the 24-70L and the 24-105L. After I bought the 24-105, it was about all I used for the next 9 months or so. I've found myself shooting in a lot of low light conditions lately, however, and have started using the 24-70 again. There have been a few times, like in high wind, where I could've used the IS, but overall I've become "re-amazed" with the quality of the 24-70. It's a bit larger and heavier, especially attached to a 1Ds, but the advantage of more f-stop and the razor sharpness (when I don't screw up) is outwaying that. If I could only keep one, it would be the 24-70.
Cheers,
Bruce

Collin85 wrote in post #2712252
Depends on what type of low-light shooting you'll be doing.

Do you need to freeze subject movement as much as possible? Then forget about the IS. IS is for correcting handshake blur caused by an insufficiently low shutter speed.

Or are you more of a still-subject shooter? In that case, IS can be very helpful.

They're both designed for different needs. One helps shots at low shutter speeds (up to 3-stops than usual), the other allows you to bump the shutter speed up (an extra stop).

Other factors to consider are weight and bokeh. Naturally larger maximum aperture lenses will weigh more. In terms of bokeh, f/2.8 often gives better results.

Hi Collin,

As of now I am not concerned with stopping motion. I'm more concerned with low light situations that would force me to drop my shutter speed a little to low to have a sharp handheld shot. When I use speeds of between 1/15 and 1/40 is where I tend to get some motion blur and would like to improve upon this so that is waht prompted this thread and poll.

I should also clarify....this is not for the studio (although I know I iwll use it here) and I'm not looking to replace the primes I have. This is mostley regarding the replacement of my Sigma 17-70mm, which I use as my walkaround lens for outdoor use.

The 24-105 is a great walk around lens because of its size, weight & range. It's generally considered pretty sharp. If you want real speed buy one of the “holy grail” primes.

TMR Design wrote in post #2712464
I am not concerned with stopping motion.

??? You like blurred subjects, or you only photograph statues?

expatphotog wrote in post #2712437
I have both the 24-70L and the 24-105L. After I bought the 24-105, it was about all I used for the next 9 months or so. I've found myself shooting in a lot of low light conditions lately, however, and have started using the 24-70 again. There have been a few times, like in high wind, where I could've used the IS, but overall I've become "re-amazed" with the quality of the 24-70. It's a bit larger and heavier, especially attached to a 1Ds, but the advantage of more f-stop and the razor sharpness (when I don't screw up) is outwaying that. If I could only keep one, it would be the 24-70.
Cheers,
Bruce

Very interesting. I appreciate this comment because the reach of the 24-70 is not what I need outdoors, but that's why I got the 70-200 f4. So, I was kind of wondering if I should get the 24-105 sometime. This convinced me to stay with what I have. Thanks.