IS vs f/2.8

[mlcy85]

Hey ladies and gentlemen out there

I'm currently using 20D + kit lens (still a noob tho), really considering upgrading now... i'm not much of a zoomer, prefer wide angles for landscapes, so looking at ranges from 20-80mm

a few lenses i have in mind

EFS 17-85mm IS USM
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
L lenses are way out of budget

problem is, IS or f/2.8? the range of the 17-85 sure is helpful considering the 1.6x factor, but i heard lots of issues with optical quality. I think both IS and f/2.8 will help in low light photog, but which is (generally) more useful?

will be grateful for any comments and advice!

[n0d3]

IS will help you reduce motion blur due to handshake/camera movement while using slow shutter speeds, f/2.8 on the other hand will allow more light in allowing you to capture the scene with a faster shutter speed, reducing any chance of blur. Depends on what you do really.

[Belle&Sebastain]

for me a bigger aperture is always a + big plus because i have more to play with depth of field, isolate background, nicer bokeh, low light and i can mantain higher shutter speeds.

[+evenstar]

Originally Posted by n0d3 IS will help you reduce motion blur due to handshake/camera movement while using slow shutter speeds, f/2.8 on the other hand will allow more light in allowing you to capture the scene with a faster shutter speed, reducing any chance of blur. Depends on what you do really.

Not motion blur, but handshake rather...

[n0d3]

Whoops, typo. Sorry.

[trlnlty]

actually you do know that the 1.6x crop factor doesnt actually let you zoom further, rather just an illusion.

just a common mis-assumtion

[+evenstar]

Originally Posted by trlnlty actually you do know that the 1.6x crop factor doesnt actually let you zoom further, rather just an illusion. just a common mis-assumtion

Yea, it's just like using digital zoom on your computer

[USM]

Originally Posted by mlcy85 EFS 17-85mm IS USM Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses are way out of budget

I would recommend that you go for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Light weight and sharp lens, and most importantly cheapest among the other two.

[trlnlty]

Originally Posted by USM I would recommend that you go for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Light weight and sharp lens, and most importantly cheapest among the other two.

ditto

[USM]

Originally Posted by trlnlty ditto

[mlcy85]

Thanks everyone for the comments and advises (spelling?) !

After some thought, I came to the understanding that if i wanna take moving objects, f/2.8 is the way to go if I wanna capture still pictures of them, coz using IS with longer shutter i'll be getting motion blur instead, and since i'll be doing mostly indoor photography (maybe concerts and portraits), yeah have decided on fast lens

haha but now comes to deciding between sigma and tamron... i know both are great lenses, and i know the tamron is way lighter and smaller and bout 100 bucks cheaper than sigma, but i've heard the build of the tamron is rather far behind the sigma... any comments on this? also are there any comments bout optical quality for both lens? kinda bothered by the extra 4mm offered on the wide end by the sigma tho...

any advice will be greatly appreciated!

[n0d3]

From what I've heard the build on the Sigma is much better than the Tamron although I would say both lenses are on par with each other optically if you get a good copy. If you need the extra 4mm I'll say get the Sigma, or if you prefer something light, get the Tamron. You can always go down the shops and try out both. And make sure you try out a few copies in case so that you won't end up with a lemon.

Anyway, quoting Streetshooter:

Quote: I had Sigma 24-70 very happy, bought Canon 24-70 on impulse, sold off Sigma 24-70, not happy with Canon (backfocusing issues) after repair OK but still not happy, sold off Canon 24-70, bought another Sigma 24-70. Happy ever after. Draw your own conclusions.

[n0d3]

And some additional links:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...+sigma+f%2F2.8

http://www.stillpointphotography.com/Sigma/

[mlcy85]

hey thanks a lot nod3! advice noted

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by mlcy85 After some thought, I came to the understanding that if i wanna take moving objects, f/2.8 is the way to go if I wanna capture still pictures of them, coz using IS with longer shutter i'll be getting motion blur instead, and since i'll be doing mostly indoor photography (maybe concerts and portraits), yeah have decided on fast lens

A prime will be even faster, cheaper and lighter if you have the flexibility to move about.

[Goldenstars08]

When you use F/2.8 yes it give you a faster shutter speed but give a shallow Dep-Of-Field.
For a IS lens it help you reduce motion blur due to handshake while using slow shutter speed but give you a better Dep-Of-Field.

So must see what you need then buy...

[user111]

personally i pick aperture over IS

[mlcy85]

hmmm diff ppl diff choices, wondering if it's useful to start a poll... IS vs f/2.8

[Zplus]

Originally Posted by mlcy85 hmmm diff ppl diff choices, wondering if it's useful to start a poll... IS vs f/2.8

Actually, it'll be more useful for you to know the diff bet the 2. Then you will be able to decide....

IS reduces hand shakes coz the IS lens element moves to compensate your shakey hands. This means if the shutter speed is low and if your hand is not steady, it will help to steady the shot. If you hand shake like crazy it will still be blurred. If the shutter speed is low and your subject moves fast, you will get motion blurr.

f2.8 is the aperture. At f2.8 your DOF is narrow. But at f2.8 it is quite bright. How bright will depend on the room you are in. This determines your shutter speed. You may find that in some concert halls, the lights may be dimmed and you may get low shutter speeds even at f2.8.... And at f2.8 if you subject moves out of the dof, you will get another sort of blurr.



Different strokes for different folks...

[mlcy85]

hey great advice Zplus! thanks!

if only there were a f/2.8 + IS lens... hmmmm