BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Hilary Appel
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/18/2007
 

What's more important - IS or f2.8?


I am still on the hunt for an all purpose, "walk around" lens. These seem to get decent ratings.

I am now looking at:

Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8
or
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

What are your opinions?


To love this question, log in above
1/20/2008 9:41:15 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Aperture.


To love this comment, log in above
1/20/2008 1:12:23 PM

 
Dennis Flanagan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/31/2005
  Aperture, IS is nice, but you'll never miss it unless you plan on shooting a lot of photos at slow shutter speeds.


To love this comment, log in above
1/20/2008 3:54:47 PM

 
Carlton Ward
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/13/2005
Contact Carlton
Carlton's Gallery
carltonwardphoto.com
  I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is a good lens (worth the price) and I have been able to get some good low light shots with it.

It stays in my bag now since I recently got the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - I chose the 24-70 lens over the 24-105mm f/4 L IS, because I didn't think I really needed the IS and wanted the faster f/2.8 instead. My friend has the 28-135 and he gets nice photos with that lens as well.

From what I have seen with the Canon 28-135 compared to the Tamron 28-75, I think the Canon is a little sharper and the Tamron has warmer colors.

You may also one day consider the Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS version) for about $550, it may be the best lens ever made in that price range.

Hope I am not confusing you more. I think either lens will work well for you.
Someday when you try an L lens, you will have an even tougher decision to make - like eating for the month or buying the L lens :o)
BTW - I am losing weight rapidly...


To love this comment, log in above
1/20/2008 4:49:05 PM

 
Pete H
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/9/2005
  Hello Hilary,

Tuff question actually.

Some would argue that IS or VR is like having 3 to 4 xtra stops. It is an arguement I agree with.

IS/VR is great for STATIC subjects only..it does nothing in preventing blur from image motion.

The answer may well be more opinion than fact.

I have a VR lens and find it invaluable in what I mostly shoot.

While a 2.8 does indeed gather more light, hand holding will still prove difficult under 1/30th..some people can hand hold down to a 1/10th, but that is pushing it.

The gain from 2.8 compared to 3.5 is marginal at best.
(i.e) I would rather shoot at f/8 or better in most situations for sharpness considerations alone. If I zoom to let's say 100mm and shoot at 1/60th, with IS/VR I will probably get the shot..very doubtful hand holing with a NON IS/VR.

all the best,

Pete


To love this comment, log in above
1/20/2008 5:17:39 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  I have to agree with Pete here. I have a telephoto zoom with VR and could not be happier with the performance. I use it mostly for shooting wildlife and consider VR invaluable for wildlife shooting.


To love this comment, log in above
1/20/2008 5:55:08 PM

 
John P. Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/8/2001
Contact John
John's Gallery
  I personally don't consider a 28-75 or 28-105 lens a walkaround lens. Based on my vacations to the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii and the Greek Isles, my walking around lens was a Tamron 28-200 mm lens on my Canon EOS 3.

I purchased the Canon 17-85 mm IS zoom when I got my Canon 30D; I made a bad mistake as the equivalent 28- 135 mm is just too narrow. I receommended the 18-250 mm Tamron to my son for his 30D and I think it has stailization. Sure, it's only got a f/3.8-5.6 aperture range, by using ISO 1600 or 3200, who cares. ANd, I haven't noticed any noise problems to date at these high ISOs.


To love this comment, log in above
1/21/2008 7:57:59 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.