Art and Photography

Aperture or IS?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 2nd, 2012 11:09 am
Tags:
None
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 6, 2008
998 posts
33 upvotes

Aperture or IS?

Quick question, would you go for f/2.8 with no IS or f/4 with IS, considering everything else are the same.
20 replies
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
Depends on how you are going to use it really...

If you want to get a faster shutter speed, price isn't an object, and don't mind the weight and size, an f/2.8 lens is the way to go. You get lots of light and as a nice "freebie", you usually get some great glass.

However, if you want a lighter lens, price is a concern, and you really just want to do some hand-held lower light shots (ie. inside of museum where you can't use a tripod), then get the IS. The portability of the IS type lenses, the money that you will save (you can get a nice portrait lens and/or a flash with the difference!), and the fact that a good IS system will give you 2 to 3 stops (maybe even 4 once you get your technique right) makes it more usable for most people.
Member
Feb 25, 2003
480 posts
14 upvotes
Toronto
2.8 aperture is pretty sweet and will give you a 1 stop advantage over f4. But these days, IS can give you a 3+ stops of shutter, so if you find yourself shooting more static objects, then its worth getting IS over f4. That being said, F2.8 will give you better bokeh, somethign to consider when shooting people or portraits
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2009
3688 posts
1227 upvotes
Oshawa, ON
...or get the f/2.8 with IS :P

There are alternatives to IS, such as a higher shutter speed or using a tripod. Like others have said, aperture is the way to go since it can't be compensated where as IS can.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
It really depends in my opinion on the kind of lens we are comparing.

For example, I am in a dilemma between the legendary Nikon 14-24 2.8 or their new 16-35mm f4 with VR.

Everything else aside, I would take VR because these are landscape lenses, and I always stop down to at least f5.6 anyways
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 6, 2008
998 posts
33 upvotes
EnyCe wrote: ...or get the f/2.8 with IS :P

There are alternatives to IS, such as a higher shutter speed or using a tripod. Like others have said, aperture is the way to go since it can't be compensated where as IS can.
That's it, we can do something about IS such as using a tripod, but for aperture, we're stuck with whatever is on the lens. A perfect reason to choose aperture over IS.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
X820 wrote: That's it, we can do something about IS such as using a tripod, but for aperture, we're stuck with whatever is on the lens. A perfect reason to choose aperture over IS.
Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
bosoxfanx1 wrote: Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
There isn't much use trying to convince some people about that... If they want to carry around a tripod and a f/2.8 lens, I'm sure they have a gym membership to help them out with that :) Don't get me wrong, I have f/2.8 zooms covering the range from 20-200mm and a separate 300mm and even a 400 f/3.5 and I enjoy them all. But when it comes to portability/travel, smaller IS/VR lenses allow me to get the shots I want most of the time. While f/2.8 lenses have better bokeh, you will need to check just how many of your pictures have you ever shot with the lens wide open to maximize that bokeh? Remember that shooting wide open will generally bring out the worse in a lens in terms of sharpness...

As for your dilemma between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm, I've shot with both on a D700 body and I can offer you this advice... there is something magically about the 14-24mm on the D700 for landscapes. What you can do and see with that lens is just outstanding! However, the weight of the lens, the large objective, and the limited nature of the range hinders when you might want to use it. The 16-35mm is much more usable (a little longer in range and portable) without the great lost in quality - however, you might miss the 2mm if you have used the 14-24mm in the past. The VRII will allow you to shoot another 4 stops which will come in handy.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 6, 2008
998 posts
33 upvotes
bosoxfanx1 wrote: Lol so we are talking about shooting still objects? Ok.. In real-world settings, you are gonna suddenly find that the chance of having the opportunity to set a tripod to get the perfect composition is very few (not to mention having to bring it everywhere)
Not totally still objects, it's more like 40% still and 60% moving objects.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
craftsman wrote: There isn't much use trying to convince some people about that... If they want to carry around a tripod and a f/2.8 lens, I'm sure they have a gym membership to help them out with that :) Don't get me wrong, I have f/2.8 zooms covering the range from 20-200mm and a separate 300mm and even a 400 f/3.5 and I enjoy them all. But when it comes to portability/travel, smaller IS/VR lenses allow me to get the shots I want most of the time. While f/2.8 lenses have better bokeh, you will need to check just how many of your pictures have you ever shot with the lens wide open to maximize that bokeh? Remember that shooting wide open will generally bring out the worse in a lens in terms of sharpness...

As for your dilemma between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm, I've shot with both on a D700 body and I can offer you this advice... there is something magically about the 14-24mm on the D700 for landscapes. What you can do and see with that lens is just outstanding! However, the weight of the lens, the large objective, and the limited nature of the range hinders when you might want to use it. The 16-35mm is much more usable (a little longer in range and portable) without the great lost in quality - however, you might miss the 2mm if you have used the 14-24mm in the past. The VRII will allow you to shoot another 4 stops which will come in handy.
Excellent info! Thanks!
I love my wide angle shots, but at this point I think it would be most practical to go for a 24mm 1.4. I want to shoot some night street photography, and that lens can't be beat :) I still need a 24-70mm or similar to cover the normal range, don't know if a 50mm 1.8D can do it, but if I get the 24mm 1.4 then I have to go for 50mm
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
X820 wrote: Not totally still objects, it's more like 40% still and 60% moving objects.
I think 2.8 vs 4+IS can't be discussed unless you tell us which two lenses we are talking about...
Deal Fanatic
Feb 2, 2007
5823 posts
346 upvotes
Toronto
Aperture man. Pro body high ISO = fast shutter speed = no need for IS. :lol:
M-e-X-x wrote: Booty call AND you get gas money? Sweet!
My HEATWARE
100% Positive
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 6, 2008
998 posts
33 upvotes
bosoxfanx1 wrote: I think 2.8 vs 4+IS can't be discussed unless you tell us which two lenses we are talking about...
24-70 and 24-105 lol
Deal Fanatic
Feb 16, 2006
5264 posts
2270 upvotes
Vancouver
Speaking to the comment re Weight....

I've always thought a meatier lens was a positive feature for low light long exposure shots simply because, when hand held, it engages your muscles better and the weight provides some inertial momentum to dampen small sharp flicks and vibrations.

.
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
bosoxfanx1 wrote: Excellent info! Thanks!
I love my wide angle shots, but at this point I think it would be most practical to go for a 24mm 1.4. I want to shoot some night street photography, and that lens can't be beat :) I still need a 24-70mm or similar to cover the normal range, don't know if a 50mm 1.8D can do it, but if I get the 24mm 1.4 then I have to go for 50mm
One lens - 35mm f/2D. Can be had for relatively cheap and rated fairly highly in comparison to the price.
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
NewsyL wrote: Speaking to the comment re Weight....

I've always thought a meatier lens was a positive feature for low light long exposure shots simply because, when hand held, it engages your muscles better and the weight provides some inertial momentum to dampen small sharp flicks and vibrations.

.
Two things:

1. You will need to carry it to the location first...
2. You will also need to carry a strong enough of a tripod to that location as well....
Deal Fanatic
Feb 16, 2006
5264 posts
2270 upvotes
Vancouver
craftsman wrote: Two things:

1. You will need to carry it to the location first...
2. You will also need to carry a strong enough of a tripod to that location as well....
I was referring to hand held... no need for a tripod as per craftsman's post....

"If you want to get a faster shutter speed, price isn't an object, and don't mind the weight and size, an f/2.8 lens is the way to go. You get lots of light and as a nice "freebie", you usually get some great glass.

However, if you want a lighter lens, price is a concern, and you really just want to do some hand-held lower light shots (ie. inside of museum where you can't use a tripod), then get the IS. The portability of the IS type lenses, the money that you will save (you can get a nice portrait lens and/or a flash with the difference!), and the fact that a good IS system will give you 2 to 3 stops (maybe even 4 once you get your technique right) makes it more usable for most people. "


I hand hold an 8 lb camera + lens combo for for 90%+ of my shots, mostly wildlife, sports, and high speed aircraft. I never use a tripod.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
X820 wrote: 24-70 and 24-105 lol
lol well I would never argue against the 24-70...

Top