Personally, I think that IS would be more useful. Even with the thrifty fifty, at f1.8, it's not a very useful lens because you're still up at a higher shutter speed to compensate for the focal length.

For IS use a monopod or build strong arms. larger apertures give you better bokehs no matter how high your shutter speed

Depends on the situation, whether you need shutter speed, whether the extra weight becomes a problem, and whether DoF is what you're after.

But you know this. So buy the 70-200IS f2.8 and stop posting polls! :-P

IS does not solve the problem of motion blur due to the subject moving during a long exposure. On the other hand, IS is wonderful for low light snaps.

Ideally a f2 IS lens is where it is at - unfortunatley such lenses do tend to melt the wallet and do nasty things to your neck and back.

Andrew

There's no way to replace a large aperture.

Rent a 70-200 f/2.8 Is for a weekend. But don't do it until you're ready to buy!!

Personally, I'd take a fast lens over and IS lens any day.

But there are applications where IS could be very helpful - aerial photography, bird photography, wildlife, boats, etc

photgraphers have captured amazing images for 100 plus years without IS.

IS is useless to me. We commonly pan at 1/40th and up succesfully and most can hand hold at 1/50, some can hold steady at 1/20.

But you cannot get around not having enough depth of field.

We commonly shoot at f22 and higher, judt to get the slow shutter speeds we need in very bright light.

Using sunny 16, it tells you that you would need f22 and higher to shoot at 1/125 and slower on bright days. Additionally, motorsports pros try to avoid any filtration (added, cheaper elements) when shooting.

Besides, most things shot slower than 1/50th can be captured via a tripod without issure.

Mike S

were not taken with IS, but likely 50% of the images were captured with a large
f stop.

IS is a nice feature for those who don't have steady hands, for very odd circumstances, etc.

But saying that, it's permanently turned off on every lens I own that has it.

History proves which is necessary and which is a luxury.

Mike S

historically, most wars were fought without them.

That's because they haven't been around all that long.

I'd imagine that if IS had been around since the beginning of photography, there would be significantly more historical photos taken with IS.

or almost as long as our country has existed and they were widely used in both world wars.

IS was introduced over six years ago, and looking at the pulitzer, World Press Tour exhibit, etc, there is not great use of IS, but there certainly is great use of aperture.

Aperture is a fundamental root of exposure and photography as a whole. IS is a feature that is a helper.

It's like saying, what's more important to a car, it having a motor or a great cd player?

A very large # (large majority) of all photography could not be captured without a large f stop, but the very, very large majority of photos are captured without the use of IS.

IS is a nice feature, but it's not fundamental t photography as a large dpeth of field is.


As I write, I'm at Mid Ohio Raceway shooting 1/100 at f22 without IS and writng on my Blackjack. I don'tneed f22, but That's the corresponding aperture t the shutter speed I need at the lowest isolated provided by the camers. I simply could not do what I want to do without a high aperture, and I don't need IS to take a sharp image at 600mm at 1/100"

In the end, wipe out high aperture, wipe out tons photos, current, to be taken, and historical. Wipe out IS, and maybe you lose 1% of current images, at most.

Simply no question.

Mike S

for the record, though, I agree with the point that aperture is more important than IS.

Just saying that IS is a fairly new technology. If it'd been around since the start, I think you'd see a lot more of it in the pulitzer category.

Without data to back it up - I'd also guess that a large percentage of pulitzer / historical photos were taken with primes. Does that mean that zoom is useless?

Also - I could be getting confused here, but it seems you're arguing for very small apertures (high f/number) while the thread is arguing very large apertures (low f/number.)

cannot make up for a a small maximum aperture setting. I take this lens to ballgames all the time, and at 300-400mm and f/5.6, even with IS, it is just TOO SLOW unless you are in full daylight. To shoot at a night game, you're going to want f/2.8 or faster, and no amount of IS is going to get you from 5.6 or even 4.0 down to 2.8 if your target is moving.

Similarly, I've shot wildlife with this lens and the difference between shooting fast moving game on a sunny day vs. a cloudy day makes all the difference in the world.

IS is only helpful for stationary objects. It is of little use in the world of action photograpy.

but then was wondering if the 24-105 f4l IS would be better, or worse, in low light than the 24-70 f2.8l..

not that I'm ready to buy, but just in theory..

of the Big apertures lenses worth it? I shoot with an 80-200 2.8 that works great for me, is the IS version worth the expense at 2x the cost? I'm thinking not...

but be prepared for a bit of disappointment - the old 80-200 is a bit better in terms of sharpness and contrast.

Image quality wise, I'd rate them like this:

1. 80-200 2.8L
2. 70-200 2.8L
3. 70-200 2.8L IS

It's not a drastic difference, but it's there...

at short focal lengths anyway. I have the 24-105 and I love it, it's a fantastic walk-around lens. But, honestly, unless I'm shooting at over 80mm, I'm probably not making much use of the IS anyway. But, as a general purpose walk-around lens, I find that the extra 35mm of reach over the 24-70 is more useful to me than low-light capabilities. You'll have to decide for yourself which is your primary reason for owning this lens. The 24-70 will be much better in low light than the 24-105, but as a walk-around lens, it is also 0.6 lbs heavier and 35mm shorter at the long end of the zoom range.

If I need something lighter, I carry my 17-85... but I haven't really had an issue with the weight.

If I need more reach, I carry my 70-200.

It really depends on your shooting style. I find the 24 end of the 24-70 to be more limiting than the 70 end. I find that if I want to go tighter than 70mm, I usually want to go tighter than 105 too. But I'm constantly wishing I had another dozen mm on the wide end of it.

not the best color and whathave you. but for the money, it's a nice lens. just not very fast. I guess I'll wait and see what comes down the pike here in the next few months.

depends what your goals are, really

What other dealers besides Robert's have you done business with that you can recommend? Roberts has the 1dIII on backorder with 150+ waiting for one.

When you're dealing with 800mm's and shutter speeds of 1/125th etc....It increases keepers, so why not use it?

99.9% of the most historical photos were taken without a digital camera.....is it a "crutch"?

...when you posted. I'm going through the same thing right now as well. That 24-70 is heavy!