canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 F/4 IS

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

yes, and no. It will stop camera-motion blur that would otherwise
happen at 1/30th, but it won't stop the blur that occurs because your
subjects move during that 1/30th exposure.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

JC Dill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

yes, and no. It will stop camera-motion blur that would otherwise
happen at 1/30th, but it won't stop the blur that occurs because your
subjects move during that 1/30th exposure.

Yes. For that you need ss, subject stabilization...

:-)

--
--- Paul J. Gans

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
JC Dill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had
an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

yes, and no. It will stop camera-motion blur that would otherwise
happen at 1/30th, but it won't stop the blur that occurs because your
subjects move during that 1/30th exposure.

Yes. For that you need ss, subject stabilization...

:-)

It's called Ritalin. The most popular drug of doting photographer parents...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Paul J Gans wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

yes, and no. It will stop camera-motion blur that would otherwise
happen at 1/30th, but it won't stop the blur that occurs because your
subjects move during that 1/30th exposure.

Yes. For that you need ss, subject stabilization...

:-)

They used to make clamp systems for that.

Back in the Daguerreotype days, I think, or even earlier.

Eatmorepies wrote:
"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4
lens, but am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when
things are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops
that the IS will give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give
a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but
the USM on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly
useful to limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me
more DOF than I want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a
higher
shutter speed and hence stop the action - not that this applies to
most weddings. I'm not sure if there's any difference in image
quality, but if I had to choose which to keep it would probably be
the 24-105 because of it's increased range of focal length.

John

I'd hope the OP has made his decision by now, even though this thread
is only a couple-three days old. My tardy contribution:

I really, really like the 24-70 f2.8L Canon; it's sharp, quick, and
fast. In most situations it covers my needs in that range admirably;
however, last Friday I was in a venue that cried out for the extra
"length" of the 24-105mm lens: a movie location shoot (Los Angeles
suburb).

Most of the time it worked fine; sometimes, particularly while there
was actual filming going on, using sneaker-zoom to get what I could
see and wanted would have been too intrusive. Fortunately, my
snapshooter was a Canon 5D, so I had plenty of crop-room to make
pretty much satisfactory (Web-view) images.

Here are a few from an earlier occasion (La Jolla - San Diego suburb)
where the 24-70 was essentially a complete tool (a little cropping
here and there) :
http://www.fototime.com/inv/85CCA11B3ABAAFD

Here are about 15% of the potential from last week (many more to come)
:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/ED83D1931B25CB7

A "P" suffix indicates a frame from the Panasonic Lumix LX1 that I
used as a means of easing into the role of Ubiquitous Camera Person
With Big Lens Pointed All And Sundry. The writers/directors actually
did let me take an active part in one scene, and were most gracious in
telling me I did it well (no speaking, just reacting and "running", if
you can call what I do at my arthritic age "running").

The movie story involves Gramps, Gramma, a pot roast, The Kid, and a
bevy of teen-age girls who for one reason or another chase The Kid
down an alley and beat him up. If I tell you more I'll never freeload
lunch in this town again ...

For your consideration ...

--
Frank ess
Background Artist/Snapshooter

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
JC Dill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had
an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

yes, and no. It will stop camera-motion blur that would otherwise
happen at 1/30th, but it won't stop the blur that occurs because your
subjects move during that 1/30th exposure.

Yes. For that you need ss, subject stabilization...

:-)

It's called Ritalin. The most popular drug of doting photographer parents...

Yes, but is it better in the camera or in the lens?

--
--- Paul J. Gans