Digital Cameras Forum

Digital Cameras Forum Discuss compact digital cameras or ask general digital photography questions - what camera to buy, memory cards, digital camera accessories, etc. You may also want to look at the Digital SLR forum, or the Camera Manufacturer forums.
Digital Camera Pro Reviews >>
Read and Write Digital Camera Reviews >>
Digital Camera Buyers Guide >>
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    4

    Larger Aperature vs Image Stabilization

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member WsW-WYATT-EARP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    UNION GROVE, WI
    Posts
    852

    Re: Larger Aperature vs Image Stabilization

    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
    Ben

    Bodies: Nikon D300 - Nikon D50

    Lenses: Nikkor 50mm f1.8 D - Tamron 17mm - 50mm F2.8 - Nikon 70mm - 200mm F2.8 VR - Nikon 1.7 Teleconverter

    Lighting: Nikon SB600 speedlight - AlienBees (2) B400's - Polaris Flash Meter

    Stabalization: Manfrotto 190XPROB tripod - Manfrotto 3265 joystick head

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: Larger Aperature vs Image Stabilization

    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

  4. #4
    Poster Formerly Known as Michael Fanelli mwfanelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    727

    Re: Larger Aperature vs Image Stabilization

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." --Mark Twain

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •