I'm looking to add one of these to my lens arsenal (Currently only have the 28-135mm kit lens). Only have the money to buy one of the two. Primary use: wedding photography.
2007-09-08 12:30:39 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
go with the faster lens. You'll appreciate the two stops difference of the f/2.8.
2007-09-08 12:49:39 · answer #1 · answered by Hey it's Ken! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS makes an excellent wedding photography lens. It would be my preferred choice because it has a 3 f/stop gain over a non IS lens. It's also lighter in weight (670g versus 950g).
From a review of the above lens...
"Canon's latest generation Image Stabilizer (IS) provides an additional 3-stops of handholdability in the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. This is definitely my favorite feature of the 24-105 L. The 24-105 L's IS is very quiet and very well behaved (does not jump when starting, ...). IS does not stop subject motion blur, but it is excellent for stopping camera shake. IS allows use of narrower aperture settings to increase DOF (Depth of Field) in handheld shots with non-moving subjects (landscapes, sculptures, art ...). IS allows use of longer shutter speeds to create motion blurs - such as moving water. Or simply shoot handheld in low light levels with the lens wide open using IS to steady the shot."
2007-09-08 15:39:14 · answer #2 · answered by Petra_au 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, this is a tough one. I think the image stabilization is pretty compelling, even over the f/2.8 two stop advantage.
You've got two advantages: Image stabilization and a little bit more zoom.
The extra f-stops are nice, but really only needed when you want a faster shutter speed to stop action and get sharper images through the faster shutter speed. Otherwise, the image stabilization allows sharper images at lower shutter speeds. Usually, events at a wedding don't need the extra shutter speed because you're using flash and the shallow depth of field of the 2.8 really needs a subject a long distance away or a not moving subject closer up to get usable sharpness. In available light shooting, which is where you'd need either the IS or the big aperture, it seems to me that your subjects aren't moving a whole lot, and you need some decent depth of field, so you'd end up stopping down the f/2.8 lens anyway...and you'd be without image stabilization.
Thus, IMHO, you're better off with the image stabilization lens, which, even wide open, will benefit you. Hope this explanation of my reasoning makes sense to you!
2007-09-08 13:17:48 · answer #3 · answered by anthony h 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Faster is usually better but the longer reach of the 24-105 with stabilization gives it the "BUY" sign.
However, f2.8 is only ONE stop faster than f4, not two as previously stated.
f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16 Yep, one stop.
2007-09-08 14:08:26 · answer #4 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋