Aperature VS IS

[jx1]

Hi, i am torn in choosing these two lenses:

Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM and Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM, they both coasts nearly the same ($10

differences in a shop near where I live).

 

I will mostly shoot landscapes, cities, night shots. The longer zoom is not my concern. so now. I understand for night

shots, bigger aperture definitely has an edge, but the IS on the other hand is much helpful when not carrying around a tripod.

 

So my question is, does the IS really justify the smaller aperture size ?

 

Or, in your opinion, what one would you choose, IS with F4, or none IS but F2.8 ?

[fullmetalphotograper]

My personal opinion is IS is no substitute for faster lens. To put it simply I will always take the faster glass over IS. I am

old fashioned, for me photography starts with the light. Faster the lens the more light there is to work with. IS has nothing

to do with exposure. Its one purpose is to dampens ones body movements when taking a photo. With the focal lengths you

are mentioning your body movements should not be a big deal. <br>

 

Here are some simple techniques for <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stalker+of+the+web/lowlight.html"

target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.geocities.com/stalker+of+the+web/lowlight.html" target="_blank">low light

photography</a>.

[eric merrill]

This topic has been discussed many times here. Do a search for 24-70 and 24-105.

 

I chose the 24-105/4 because I wanted a larger zoom range and IS. If Canon introduced a 24-70/2.8 IS

lens, I would buy it. Both f/4 and f/2.8 are relatively slow for the focal lengths they cover. If I want fast

glass, I switch to my primes. Given that, I opted for the longer coverage and the IS.

 

I don't like my results when I shoot at 1/15 of a second with my 85/1.8 handheld. On the other hand,

shooting at 85mm and 1/15 on my 24-105 usually results in sharp photos. I'm often shooting in the 1/15

to 1/30th range with IS. It's a very troublesome shutter speed without IS.

 

Shooting mostly landscapes, I'd be surprised if you shoot wide open. For landscapes, I would favor IS

over faster glass.

 

 

Eric

[jbauer]

I most of your landscape work is done on the top of a tripod then IS is pretty useless. I am in agreement with Ralph here - faster glass is always my preference to any image stabilization system. Remember that IS only addresses camera movement and only controls that half of the "blur equation'. A larger aperture also allows better handheld shots AND gives you faster shutter speeds to boot - both side of the 'blur equation'. So if you are ever shooting a moving subject in low light - larger aperture is king.

[Jeff Lear]

There is not really ONE lens that will serve you best for "landscape, city, and night shots". These are three strictly unique endeavors. Ideally, you want a 10-22 for your landscapes, a 24-105 as your city walk-around lens, and a fast 2.8 (or faster prime) for low light.

 

So, the question you have to answer is where are you willing to sacrifice? If landscapes are of primary concern then skip the two-eight and get the 10-22 along with a 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 prime (that combo will cost about the same as your 24-70 and significantly less if you go with a Tokina or Tamron in place of the 10-22). If you're willing to sacrifice the wide open vistas that a true UWA offers for low light performance then go with the 24-70. While I love my 24-105, this isn't really the lens for you because you'll be sacrificing both ultra-wide AND low light.