BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Katrina Thorsen		Image stabilizer, to buy or not to buy? I am looking at buying the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 with image stabilizer. Can anyone tell me a little bit more about image stabilizers? Do they have that much impact for smaller, less heavy lenses or are they really meant for the big zoom lenses? ~Thanks To love this question, log in above September 29, 2005

Jon Close		The EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM does not have image stabilization. Are you refering instead to the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM instead? IS can be effective in any situation where light levels prevent a shutter speed fast enough to counter hand-holding camera shake. It allows one to shoot at a lower ISO (with less noise/grain) than otherwise. IS cannot, however, compensate for subject motion. To love this comment, log in above September 29, 2005

Katrina Thorsen		You are right I typed in the wrong lens. It is the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. How much is the IS able to counter hand shake? To love this comment, log in above September 29, 2005

Jon Close		About 3 stops, depending on how steady is the user. 3 stops is the difference between 1/125 and 1/15. To love this comment, log in above September 29, 2005

Athena Carey		The 24-105 won't have the same shallow DOF as the 24-70. If it were a 2.8 I'd be all over it. Really, that is the only thing keeping me from throwing that $1200+ at a camera shop for the 24-105 right now. I love bokeh. Anyone able to convince me? I live in a 3rd world country and will be in a city with a large Canon shop in one week's time. Would love to NEED to buy this new lens. ;o) Athena To love this comment, log in above October 16, 2005

Michael H. Cothran		Athena, While you are technically correct that the f4 lens will not have as shallow a DOF as the 24-70 when shooting the latter @ f2.8, I doubt you will see much difference in DOF wide open with either lens. However, the 24-70 should outperform the 24-105 @ f4, and probably @ f5.6 as well. By f8, both lenses should be superb, and on equal turf. The "bokeh," to which you refer, is really a product of the aperture blades used in the lens. In general, more blades equal better bokeh. If both lenses in question have the same amount of blades (I'm guessing 7 or 9), you should see little, if any, difference in the bokeh of either lens. For Katrina, In my opinion, IS is a valuable asset to have if you plan to hand hold the camera often with slower shutter speeds. However, it is not as important on the 24-105 as it might be on a lens with a longer focal length, ie, the 70-200. Camera shake becomes more prevalent as the focal length increases. It is not worth the money if you plan to shoot from a tripod, but if you need the mobility of hand holding the camera, then that should be your first priority, and the IS then becomes a must have. Michael H. Cothran www.mhcphoto.net To love this comment, log in above October 16, 2005

Athena Carey		Thanks Michael - and thanks also for sending your response to my email. You are right - I would otherwise have missed it. Interestingly, I was just admiring your gallery a couple of days ago and today have a message from you. Your work is excellent and the descriptions you add are wonderful. I sold my 2nd 28-135 lens (too soft) this summer and need a replacement for it. Do you think the 24-105 would serve well? I have a 50mm 1.4 that I can use for low light and bokeh. ;o) Athena www.lifeprintsphotography.com To love this comment, log in above October 16, 2005

This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here Report this Thread