"IS" a psychological safety net..........?

[Cobra]

...........Or useful addition?
I am toying with the idea of replacing my kit lens with either the 24-105L f/4 IS USM or the 24-70L f/2.8 USM I know the theory goes that the IS is useful over 2 stops hand held
Obviously the 24-105 will give a little more reach but I guess the 24-70 f/ 2.8 will already have the 2 stops advantage
The price difference in "minimal" as far as I am concerned so that doesn't enter into the equation
There are a bundle of questions in the post mostly "what ifs"
I would most be interested in the comparisons
Cheers in advance

 

[CT]

IS is probably the biggest advance in lens technology since auto focus. I'm constantly struggling for light with the 500mm F4, and the IS is a boon in getting me sharp shots at shutter speeds I've no real right to expect - well slower than the 2 -3 stops latitude claimed.

Invaluable in my view.

 

[Irritable_Rabbit]

You IS racist I tell you Cobra! What right have to ask questions like that here? No gentleman would do such a thing.

What you should be asking yourself with those two lenses is not about the I.S., but whether you want the shallower depth of field provided by the f2.8 on the 24-70mm over the extra reach of the f4 24-105mm.

I prefer the 2.8 over the f4 so that is the way I went. It would have been nice to have I.S. as well though.

 

[Janice]

Doesnt IS just enable you to handhold shots at slower speeds, eliminating camera shake?

So if your subject ( a jumpy little blue tit ) moves.. the IS is of no value at all? :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

Cheers CT, so cutting through the rest does that mean you would go for the f/4 over the f/2.8 in this instance?

 

[Cobra]

You IS racist I tell you Cobra! What right have to ask questions like that here? No gentleman would do such a thing.

What you should be asking yourself with those two lenses is not about the I.S., but whether you want the shallower depth of field provided by the f2.8 on the 24-70mm over the extra reach of the f4 24-105mm.

I prefer the 2.8 over the f4 so that is the way I went. It would have been nice to have I.S. as well though.

trust you Bunny
I agree if the 2.8 had IS in my opinion there would have been no contest

Doesnt IS just enable you to handhold shots at slower speeds, eliminating camera shake?

So if your subject ( a jumpy little blue tit ) moves.. the IS is of no value at all? :shrug:

Good point I'd be interested in the anwser too

 

[RobertP]

I had the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and now have the 24-105 IS. Both can produce beautifully sharp shots but the IS even though it is f4 will get more sharp than the f2.8 when the shutter speeds get slower.

I took plenty of waterfall shots in Canada around 1/8th second or slower hand held and nearly all of them were sharp on the static areas. IS removes camera shake but not subject movement so if working in low light with things that move you may still be better with larger apertures.

 

[Janice]

Doesnt IS just enable you to handhold shots at slower speeds, eliminating camera shake?

So if your subject ( a jumpy little blue tit ) moves.. the IS is of no value at all? :shrug:

IS removes camera shake but not subject movement so if working in low light with things that move you may still be better with larger apertures.

Woohoo!! We AGREE, Robert!!!

 

[CT]

Doesnt IS just enable you to handhold shots at slower speeds, eliminating camera shake?

So if your subject ( a jumpy little blue tit ) moves.. the IS is of no value at all? :shrug:

The vast majority of my shots are taken on a tripod with IS enabled. Because I'm tracking the bird, with one hand on the camera and one on the lens, movement is being transmitted through my hands all the time to the lens. It doesn't matter much of course at very fast shutter speeds, but when I'm down to shutter speeds of 1/60 or less with the 500mm then the IS becomes crucial. You can actually see the image steady down in the viewfinder.

Obviously at those sort of slow speeds you're anticipating the bird being still enough to take the shot. If it moves then it's 'Goodnight Vienna' anyway. :shrug:

 

[Janice]

it's 'Goodnight Vienna' anyway. :shrug:

Thought Vienna was Rigsby's cat....... no wonder there aren't any birds in your garden, CT!!

 

[CT]

Cheers CT, so cutting through the rest does that mean you would go for the f/4 over the f/2.8 in this instance?

I never have enough light, I seem to find myself using 800 ISO almost permanently at this time of year, so I'd go for 2.8 every time - it often makes the difference between getting the shot and not. There's no denying the premium to paid though for that extra stop.

 

[CT]

Thought Vienna was Rigsby's cat....... no wonder there aren't any birds in your garden, CT!!

That'll be quite enough Miss Jones.

 

[Steep]

CT doesn't the IS manual say not to use it while on a tripod in case you damage the IS motors?

 

[Cobra]

I never have enough light, I seem to find myself using 800 ISO almost permanently at this time of year, so I'd go for 2.8 every time - it often makes the difference between getting the shot and not. There's no denying the premium to paid though for that extra stop.

Thanks again CT, I really meant this ( comparison) in the context of a general walk-about" type of lens thing.

 

[Cobra]

I had the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and now have the 24-105 IS. Both can produce beautifully sharp shots but the IS even though it is f4 will get more sharp than the f2.8 when the shutter speeds get slower.

I took plenty of waterfall shots in Canada around 1/8th second or slower hand held and nearly all of them were sharp on the static areas. IS removes camera shake but not subject movement so if working in low light with things that move you may still be better with larger apertures.

Thanks Robert

CT doesn't the IS manual say not to use it while on a tripod in case you damage the IS motors?

I read that too

 

[CT]

CT doesn't the IS manual say not to use it while on a tripod in case you damage the IS motors?

That was the case with early versions of Canon IS, but later versions, which would be any lens you buy today, have an upgraded version of IS which can be used quite happily on a tripod, even with the head locked off and using a remote release (no movement at all for the system to detect).

 

[petemc]

trust you Bunny
I agree if the 2.8 had IS in my opinion there would have been no contest

Even without there was no contest for me. 24-70 over the 24-105. Much prefer 2.8 to 4.

 

[mho]

if there was a choise of lens 2.8 or 4.0 id opt for the 2.8 everytime.

IS is a major consideration if your hand holding or using long lens's, if you can get both thats just a bonus.

 

[Cobra]

if there was a choise of lens 2.8 or 4.0 id opt for the 2.8 everytime.

IS is a major consideration if your hand holding or using long lens's, if you can get both thats just a bonus.

My thought exactly, though thats not an option in this case, cutting through the BS I guess the question really boils down to Which one ( nothing else matters at this point)
f/4 with IS OR f/2.8 without? :shrug: