IS or wide aperature

[windoze]

what are advantages of IS ( canon lenses ) vs faster wider aperature lenses ( or vice versa ) :scratch,

what situations favor each?

troy

[ziggy53]

Troy,


IS is most valuable for longer focal length lenses without tripod. It can also be valuable at low-light, but does not help with subject motion-blur, only with camera shake.

A large aperture lens is beneficial in low-light and generally has a better optical build so that the "sweet spot" apterture/s ( highest resolution and acuity) of the lens is generally also broader and starts a bit more open. I almost forgot about DOF. A larger aperture allows more creative use of limited DOF.

This is not to say that "every" lens performs this way, but generally, in the same class and focal length, they do.

The best possible combination, in my humble opinion of course, is a camera with built-in IS (Anti-Shake), like the Konica-Minolta d7D and 5D, and a large aperture lens or lenses. (This does not mean that I believe this camera is best among all dSLRs, only in the scope of this discussion.)

Of course I don't have that so I can only dream. :):

There are also times when you want to shut off the IS, so it's not always beneficial.

Best,

ziggy53

[wxwax]

IS helps you with the shakes, especially at shutter speeds below the focal length.

Wider aperatures allow you faster shutter speeds in low light and give you better control over depth of field. They're expensive and addictive.

[windoze]

thanx to you both wxwax / ziggy !

fact is i need one of these lenses: 24-70 F2.8 / or 24-105 F4

im trying to be an educated consumer not a conspicuous consumer...


troy

IS helps you with the shakes, especially at shutter speeds below the focal length.

Wider aperatures allow you faster shutter speeds in low light and give you better control over depth of field. They're expensive and addictive.

[limbik]

thanx to you both wxwax / ziggy !

fact is i need one of these lenses: 24-70 F2.8 / or 24-105 F4

im trying to be an educated consumer not a conspicuous consumer...


troy
It really depends on what you plan to use it for. But there is little value in IS 105mm and below IMHO, due to the previous reasons. You will get much better background blur and slightly higher speeds with the 2.8.

[windoze]

i will not use it to make $$. i will use it for static landscapes and family "portraits".....

" i could do the easy thing and just ask Andy, but this time I wanna feel free to make my own wrong decision! "
troy
It really depends on what you plan to use it for. But there is little value in IS 105mm and below IMHO, due to the previous reasons. You will get much better background blur and slightly higher speeds with the 2.8.

[luckyrwe]

So if Andy owns it for a week without selling it off, then it's good?

[mercphoto]

what are advantages of IS ( canon lenses ) vs faster wider aperature lenses ( or vice versa ) :scratch,

what situations favor each?

troy

I like IS on my telephotos, especially Canon's with two modes of IS. But normal and wide lenses can benefit from IS for (relatively) long exposure shots, such as this one, hand-held with a 28-135/IS lens. 1/30 second at 60mm.

http://mercphoto.smugmug.com/photos/13549435-M.jpg

Having said all that, I really like 2.8 lenses (and faster). There are times when fast glass is just really nice to have.

[limbik]

Personally, I would want something wider for landscapes. Possibly the 17-40 f4L or 16-35 f2.8 if you want the fast lens. But hey, if you want to save a few bucks, get a bit more zoom, and get IS, go with the 17-85 if its for a 1.6x camera.

[gtc]

why not get a nice fast lens and use a tripod?IS looks good for sports and nature shooting but do you really need it for static landscapes and family portraits? remember they drain your battery rather quickly.

with a larger aperture and the faster shutter speeds that it would allow, then you can safely handhold without the need for IS.

an 80mm lens would require a shutter speed of 80-100th second to handhold ,which is achievable in reasonable light.

lower light portraits can be handheld through use of a flash.

fill flash is usually used for outdoor portraits in any case

lower light landscapes however would require a tripod.

a tripod is a good idea for landscapes anyway-as it allows you to compose properly,level horizon etc and therefore would reduce the need for IS

the money you save on buying a non IS lens could be spent on another lens or a flash etc



i will not use it to make $$. i will use it for static landscapes and family "portraits".....

" i could do the easy thing and just ask Andy, but this time I wanna feel free to make my own wrong decision! "
troy

[pathfinder]

IS is great for long teles. I love it.

But the other real advantage is that IS is cheaper for the manufacturer to include than another stop of lens aperature ( ie bigger diameter lens elements). Notice Canon's gradual drift to IS lenses with f3.5 to f4, rather than f2.8 or larger.

[Chase]

IS is great for long teles. I love it.

But the other real advantage is that IS is cheaper for the manufacturer to include than another stop of lens aperature ( ie bigger diameter lens elements). Notice Canon's gradual drift to IS lenses with f3.5 to f4, rather than f2.8 or larger. Its also an easier sales pitch to a regular consumer. People need to know something to understand fast apertures and such but IS sounds modern and advanced and people see the obvious benefits. :dunno