24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4 IS: how much does image stabilization offset the slower aperture?
Asked 8/10/2011
6 views
2 answers
0
I’m choosing between Canon’s 24-70mm f/2.8 and 24-105mm f/4 IS. The 24-105mm range suits me better, but the faster f/2.8 aperture seems useful indoors.
In practical use, how much does image stabilization make up for the one-stop slower aperture when hand-holding? For example, if f/2.8 at 1/60s becomes f/4 at 1/30s at the same ISO, is 1/30s with IS realistically sharp in the overlapping 24-70mm range? More generally, how reliable is IS at shutter speeds around 1/30s or slower?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
12
Well if you're just talking about motion blur from your handheld shakiness - pretty much all the modern IS/VR/OS designs handle 1-stop differences pretty well. 1/30th at 105mm might be pushing it, but most current IS designs handle a two stop difference well, especially if you're a somewhat steady person.
At the claims of 3-4 stops is really where things get questionable.
The big difference here is that IS will counter your movement, but not your subjects. If you're shooting anything moving (people), then more shutter speed is better than IS - obviously more shutter + IS is even better. No amount of IS will counter the movement of a moving person. If you're shooting landscapes, its not an issue. If you're shooting weddings and events, it may be.
You're also getting more control of depth of field at 2.8 vs 4.
Originally by user1917. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1917
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For camera shake, yes: modern IS generally makes up a 1-stop difference easily, and often 2 stops with good technique. So if f/2.8 gives you 1/60s, an f/4 IS lens at 1/30s is usually realistic for hand-held sharpness in the shared 24-70mm range.
Some users report even slower results with the 24-105mm, including sharp shots around 1/10s at 105mm, but that depends on your steadiness and keeper-rate expectations. Claims of 3-4 stops are less consistently reliable in real use.
The key limitation: IS only reduces blur from your hand movement. It does nothing for subject motion. If you shoot people, events, or anything moving, the faster f/2.8 aperture is often more valuable because it lets you keep shutter speeds higher. If you shoot static subjects, travel, landscapes, or general walk-around work, the 24-105mm f/4 IS can be the more practical choice thanks to stabilization plus extra reach.
A faster lens also gives shallower depth of field; IS does not. So the tradeoff is: f/2.8 helps freeze motion and blur backgrounds, while f/4 IS helps hand-held shooting of non-moving subjects.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Does a zoom lens’s image stabilization rating apply across the whole zoom range?
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS as a walk-around lens for a Canon Rebel XTi
Does the Ricoh GR II’s APS-C sensor offset its slower lens and lack of stabilization versus the Sony RX100 III?
Which walkaround travel zooms make sense for a Canon 5D Mark III?
When should you turn off image stabilization?