Larger Aperature vs Image Stabilization

[Crucifix]

I'm looking to purchase a Canon EF 70-200 lens for my Canon 30D, but I can't decide whether to get the F/4L IS, or the F/2.8L non-IS since the prices are very similar (and I can't afford an F/2.8L IS).

What would be the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? Considering they advertise a 4 stop advantage with IS on the F/4L, it seems to me that would more than offset the advantage of a single additional stop on the F/2.8 non-IS (not to mention less weight). I've looked at photos from both lenses and wide open the background blur looks fine to me. If I'm being simplistic here, please tell me why!

As a bit of background, I'm fairly new to the DSLR world and intend to primarily take landscape/architecture/scenic photos using a tripod, but I'd like the option to hand hold the camera at weddings and other events.

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

I would think if you are going to take most photos using a tripod then you wouldn't need the IS. With the bigger aperature you can shoot at faster speeds. I believe hand-held shutter speeds are around 1/125 - 1/80 for nice results.

Weddings are usually a bit darker setting and the wider aperature will help you here. The f-4 may require longer shutter speeds then you may get motion blur. Alot of things come into play.

I personally would lean towards the F2.8 lens due to the fact that the majority of your shooting is done with tripod, and it would serve great for handheld events giving you a faster shutter speed when needed.

Someone that shoots canon may know something different or shed a different view on your decision. but that is my .02

[Ronnoco]

I would also point out that a 4 stop advantage to IS seems to be "stretching it". I have NOT seen optical bench test results that indicate a 4 stop advantage to any IS system.

Ronnoco

[mwfanelli]

I'm looking to purchase a Canon EF 70-200 lens for my Canon 30D, but I can't decide whether to get the F/4L IS, or the F/2.8L non-IS since the prices are very similar (and I can't afford an F/2.8L IS).

What would be the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? Considering they advertise a 4 stop advantage with IS on the F/4L, it seems to me that would more than offset the advantage of a single additional stop on the F/2.8 non-IS (not to mention less weight). I've looked at photos from both lenses and wide open the background blur looks fine to me. If I'm being simplistic here, please tell me why!

As a bit of background, I'm fairly new to the DSLR world and intend to primarily take landscape/architecture/scenic photos using a tripod, but I'd like the option to hand hold the camera at weddings and other events.

First, IS has been tested to 3 stops better than 1/FL, I've never heard 4. Also, that number depends a lot on how steady the photographer is in the first place.

You have to remember that these telephotos already have a very small DOF. I doubt that there would be many landscape or architectural shots that would work wide open at f/2.8. That DOF blurring is almost always used for photos such as people or solitary objects. Your photos need context.

If you use a tripod most of the time for the subjects you mentioned, you won't be using IS much. If your shooting is more varied, IS can be a big big bonus.

The f/2.8 will be much bigger and heavier. Can you carry it around all the time? Also, with a DSLR, don't be afraid of using higher ISO settings, the small amounts of noise is magnitudes less than what people used to accept for film grain. For my uses, I'd go the IS route, IS is more important to me than AF!. For your uses, you might like the f/2.8 better. That's helpful, isn't it? The bottom line is that you are the only one who can make this decision.

Let us know.