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

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

ed rader

Not for stopping action.

chris clements wrote in post #2712504
??? You like blurred subjects, or you only photograph statues?

Chris,

Don't take me so literally. All I am saying is that based on what and how I shoot, I have encountered situations where I am getting some motion blue due to slow shutter speeds. As of now I'm not even adressing the issue of stopping motion and have not had trouble with that.

SuzyView wrote in post #2712508
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.

If anyone has looked in my sig you can see I do have the 70-200mm f/4 L. The overlap of the 24-105 wouldn't bother me but the 24-70 complements thr 70-200 nicely. For me this is more about the performance at lower shutter speeds than it is about the focal length range. I want the lens that will do the most for me in terms of low(er) light shooting.

TMR Design wrote in post #2712546
If anyone has looked in my sig you can see I do have the 70-200mm f/4 L. The overlap of the 24-105 wouldn't bother me but the 24-70 complements thr 70-200 nicely. For me this is more about the performance at lower shutter speeds than it is about the focal length range. I want the lens that will do the most for me in terms of low(er) light shooting.

Well said, I 2nd the motion! and...after reading this thread you so thoughtfully developed, I will now get the 24-70!

TMR Design wrote in post #2712533
Chris,
Don't take me so literally. All I am saying is that based on what and how I shoot, I have encountered situations where I am getting some motion blue due to slow shutter speeds. As of now I'm not even adressing the issue of stopping motion and have not had trouble with that.

Now I'm really confused!
What do you mean by 'motion blur' ? Caused by camera movement, or subject movement? If the latter, then IS is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

IS = slow shutter speed. Slow shutter speed = (potential for) subject blur. You can't divorce the two.

I'd rather have an extra f stop

Chris,

I don't know why you are confused. Did you read my original post? This is simple. If I am shooting a subject or scene and the lighting is low or poor I will get motion blur due to the slow shutter speeds I need to use. Motion blur is a term used all the time and is not to be confused with stopping motion or intentionally blurring part of a scene. It can be the combination of camera movement and/or slight subject movement.
For the times when shutter speeds would drop low enough that a handheld shot might suffer from motion blur, I want to help this out a bit with either the faster lens or IS. As I originally stated, I have never used IS so I did not know if it was the better solution of having a full stop would allow for those handheld shots at slightly slower shutter speeds.

TMR Design wrote in post #2712654
Chris,I don't know why you are confused.

Clearer - thanks. But I'm still a tad concerned that you think IS is a universal panacea.
IMO low light photography solutions rarely come down to "either the faster lens or IS". The faster lens (faster shutter) wins every time.

chris clements wrote in post #2712670
Clearer - thanks. But I'm still a tad concerned that you think IS is a universal panacea.
IMO low light photography solutions rarely come down to "either the faster lens or IS". The faster lens (faster shutter) wins every time.

Chris,

I came into this saying I've never owned IS and don't know what, if anything it would do for me. I don't 'think' anything about IS other than what I'm told here, so I am trying to get opinion and eduation. Remember, I am not talking about low light photography as a constant. In my original post I specified that The occasional shot forces me to use shutter speeds that are a bit to low to get a solid handheld shot and want to compensate for this if possible. If I were doing low light photography I would certainly be using a fast prime. I understand the difference and concepts.

TMR Design wrote in post #2712533
I am getting some motion blue due to slow shutter speeds. As of now I'm not even adressing the issue of stopping motion and have not had trouble with that.

It may be helpful to get the EXIF data on some of your shots to determine where your softness problem lies and then make the decision if an extra stop or IS would cure that.

I recently did a New Years Eve bash without flash and most were at ISO 1600 and very, very slow shutter speeds .. 1/15, 1/6, etc. I tried to shoot people as they were relatively still but when I edited these files the ones that ended in the garbage bin were due to subject motion. The objects around the people like chairs, tables, etc. were sharp.

So determine where your softness problem lies and then make the decision if an extra stop or IS would cure that.

And perhaps most importsntly don't rule out improving your technique either .. with just a little practice you should be able to handhold most focal lengths between 25-75mm at shutters as low as 1/15 or 1/30.

By paying close attention to your grip, breathing, and shutter press technique you will find a lot of sharp shots at 1/4 sec with a 24-70 2.8.
Mike

It's been said or at least hinted at...the compatibility with the camera and YOU should make the diff...

If the heavier lens is TOO heavy to hold steadily, the extra f-stop (and thus 1 'step' faster shutter speed) might not be of any use, the blur due to camera-shake will render the image blurry...

If the lighter but "slower" lens (4 vs 2.8) can be held more steadily then it (along with IS) should give sharper results, though you'll have to use a higher ISO to get a shutter speed that will stop action...and fortunately THAT is an option to keep in mind when stopping action is important.

I have the 24-105 f4 IS and the older 28-70 f2.8L - for me it's not either/or. The two lenses service two different purposes for me. The 2.8 is my low-light and/or studio zoom. The 24-105 is my general purpose, walking around zoom for use outdoors or indoors with flash. The IS is very useful in those situations when I do get into a lower light situation.

I would recommend you look at where/when you would be using this zoom and choose accordingly.

Mark

Practice with the lens every day, and slow exposures will get better and better. There are those that can shoot between heartbeats.

Pick a shutter speed that you feel you might need (1/25, for example) and keep shooting until you get 10 steady shots. Do that for two weeks. At first, 1/10 might be good, so it'll take a while. After two weeks, it'll be much better. I get good keepers with the 70-200 f/2.8 almost all the time now, and it's getting better as I practice.

I'm surprised jdos brought up the the between heartbeats technique. I always try, even when I'm using my P&S, to take the shot in between heartbeats. DIdn't know it was an actual technique, just something I always did lol.

jdos2 wrote in post #2713385
Practice with the lens every day, and slow exposures will get better and better. There are those that can shoot between heartbeats.

Pick a shutter speed that you feel you might need (1/25, for example) and keep shooting until you get 10 steady shots. Do that for two weeks. At first, 1/10 might be good, so it'll take a while. After two weeks, it'll be much better. I get good keepers with the 70-200 f/2.8 almost all the time now, and it's getting better as I practice.

Thanks. That makes perfect sense. I do have another reason for wanting to replace my Sigma lens so ultimately one of these 2 lenses we are discussing here will be part of my kit. Right now, based on what everyone is saying and my own shooting habits and likes, I'm leaning towards the 24-70mm f/2.8.