+

[winterwish]

Yeah, so I spent about 2 hours on google today reading tidbits about it.
Never saw a complete thread though...
Not that I want to sound like a n00b... I just can't seem to find a good answer via Google >.<

(Assuming about the SAME MTF graphs/handling/construction)
1)If you had to pick between a F2.8 vs a F4-5.6VR/IS for a standard zoom, which one? (14-80ish)
EX - Canon ___ 2.8L vs Canon ____ F4~ IS
2)If you had to pick between a F2.8 vs a F4-5.6 VR/IS for a telephoto zoom, which one? (80-600ish)
EX - _____ 2.8"L"equivalent vs _____ F4~ IS/VR

Already aware how VR/IS is "cheating" to some pros, understandable.
Already aware that there are 2.8 + IS lenses out there, I'm eyeing the 17-55 and 70-200 Canon ones and wishing I had 2.5k!

I'm aware of the advantages of both... (works better in low light vs anti-shake/clarity), and how you can compensate for both with flash/tripod/etc.

[Av4rice]

I wouldn't say tripod is always the answer, unless your shooting is really limited to certain things. Thus, IS is a must if you've got a lot of telephotage goin' on.

And I don't think of a wider aperture maximum as a low-light option so much as a DoF/bokeh control option.

So since I'm obsessed with bokeh, I'd probably opt for the F2.8 on standard zoom, but still pick the IS option for telephoto (I'm assuming it's something like 150mm or more--though I can't really say exactly at which point IS would become "necessary" for me on a telephoto). Longer focal length is another way to narrow DoF anyway... I think...

[winterwish]

sorry, I haven't hard of the DoF/bokeh control option to combat low lighting.
I always hear the F1.8 prime being pulled out or something. ^_^
(I've also read up on the technical definition of bokeh.. but not sure how it's applied here.)

Care to elaborate if you feel bored enough? =)

[Shiro MS08th]

Definitely f/2.8 for both cases.
f/5.6 is too slow, imagine shooting gigs or low light shots, the speed will be too slow.
Unless you have D3, which has insane good high iso.

[Hexlord]

Bokeh to me is a secondary priority when it comes to taking a good photo.

Ideally it would be good to have F2.8 for both lenses but the F4 versions from Canon are not that bad too. Plus, they are less bulky comparatively so you may be able to balance them properly when you take your photos.

[shiroin]

I hope this isn't out of the blue, but how about learning how to hold your camera+lens steadily?

Truth is, no matter how big your lenses' aperture are, you will encounter situations when you will be required to hold at shutter speeds slower than the threshold shutter speed. (This speed is defined as (focal length)^-1, the speed which the effects of shake becomes more evident)

I know that VR/IS sounds like an equivalent of a 'win' button in the game of camera shake, but I can tell you by experience, 1/10th @ 200mm is barely doable even with VR.

Train yourself to be able to handheld at speeds slower than 1/60th, it will help you alot!

Imagine this, the weather just turned cloudy, and every photographer, in order to encounter the situation either:
1. holds camera with one hand and reflector in another
2. uses direct flash and has extreme trouble compensating the harsh shadows
3. flicks the shutter speed dial, open up the aperture, and shoot as if the weather never changed~

I am not saying the third method is best in all situations, but it certainly the most simple and will not disrupt your flow compared to the previous two. The two previous options are also more optimal in some situations (eg. special lighting effect with off camera flash), but it is always good to have extra options.

OR you can always go with the D3 (people compared D3 images @ ISO4000 vs D2Xs images @ ISO400... ORZ), or with a Leica M8 with a Noctunlix 50mm F/1.0... THEN you will never have to worry about those situations anymore~

[winterwish]

shiron: nah it's not out of the blue. I expected the arguments I saw... just wondered if there was actually a pro photographer who actually cared about IS, for however a low chance that is =P.
I definetely do NOT favor using IS as a crutch, but if it helps get the image quality up when you do commerical/freelance stuff under a smaller budget, then I think it becomes slightly useful.
That's what I meant to ask... or does every photographer HAVE to shoot with $1k 2.8s for weddings/etc? ^^

I guess this is indirectly related to upgrading lenses.
Take for example, the starting photographer upgrading after he gets his basic normal/tele/prime consumer combo that can afford IS lens upgrades, but not quite those high end F2.8s, and whether he should wait or not if his income isn't horribly high...

[TomodachiFriend]

It all depends on what you're shooting. IS/VR can't freeze your subject's motion but, at least, it helps reduce motion blur coming from your side. I don't have a 600mm, but the Canon XLH1 has a 846mm lens (35mm equivalent and that's about what you'd get with a 600mm on your average DSLR). It is very very hard to hold steady. Even with a big tripod, you can see some movement when reviewing the footage. I'd go for 2.8 on the normal lens and IS for the big telephoto.

[tfcreate]

I recommend a shooting coach. Not one for camera, but for .... well, shooting.
I use the same technique for firing a rifle as I do for the camera.
B
R
A
S
S
Breathe.... take a moderate breath..
Relax.... loosen your arms, shoulders and the grip on the camers... don't tense up.
Aim.... frame the shot, not by twisting or turning, but by changing your body position.
Stop... literally hold your breath for the next few seconds (5-10) as you....
Squeeze (or Shoot) press the button to release the shutter... never mash it.

No piece of technology can ever beat the basics....
TFC

[winterwish]

Yeah, I recently started doing that breathing technique.
I feel so dorky doing it because I'm used to breathing through my mouth and it looks like I'm suffocating. =)

Off topic:
It just occured to me that the 35mmF2 and 50mmF1.8 can "substitute" via sharpness if one wishtes to saves up for the F2.8+IS?

[SolarTempest]

IS rocks, but not as awesome as F2.8.
As I have now sworn, I will never buy a lens that's slower than F2.8 again (except maybe fisheye or ultrawide).

Seriously, I see more merit in having greater DoF range in a wide angle lens, rather than VR assistance in lower light conditions.

VR rocks in telephotos, more than I thought when I purchased my VR tele lens. But still, F2.8 constant aperture is pure gold to me in all sorts of lighting conditions...

As a last note, I have some firm belief that the F2.8 lenses have much better quality glass that the F4-5.6 lenses ever will. I fix shake with my tripod, so VR doesn't seem to be as big a boon (all the time benefit in quality v.s. improvement under select conditions).

[itsonlyroknroll]

I'll always take a fast lens over a IS one. That is why I chose my 24-70 f/2.8 over the 24-105 f/4 IS. You can control depth of field and capture motion with a f/2.8, IS isn't going to do that.

[SpookyElectric]

I'm not sure what's with the "I'm sorry" in the title. Seems like a good thread for this forum. Answers aren't just for you. It's a subject likely to be of interest to others.

I haven't used any VR/IS lenses. And as mentioned in your other thread, nearly all my con shooting is P&S. But, I think the issue of subject motion that was brought up can apply significantly in convention shooting. While I think I'm pretty steady, getting cosplayers to stop fidgeting is another issue. (In particular, the ones you randomly stop to photograph during a convention.) Often I have nice floors & walls, but not people.
For those, I doubt you'd be using the tele, since your space to move and time with the subject are limited. So, I suspect at least for the wider lens, lower f/stop is more valuable than IS. (And there's the shallower DoF benefit)

[Tenchi Fan]

The OP's questions on the first post is why people are buying Sony, Pentax, Samsung dslr cameras. Build in-body Image stabilization makes all lenses available for the camera with that ability.

I would definitely pick faster lense then VR/IS if I had to choose between the two.

[shiroin]

Of all the companies that make in-body stabilization mechanism, I would only go for Olympus.

Sony is overpriced for its accessories. Its cameras are ugly and system generally does not produce satisfying results. To use Zeiss lenses with AF and electronic metering would be the only reason to use Sony.

Pentax makes great lenses (LE lenses... idk about the other ones); however, with its extremely poor AF system, a great lens out of focus is worse than an average lens in focus. Had a K100D Super for 20 days then I returned it. Samsung is essentially the same.

Olympus is a different story. They have gone great lengths to create a new format, which allowed the introduction to F/2 zoom lenses of exceptional quality. The short flange distance also makes it theoretically compatible with ALL SLR lenses without electronic functionality. They have by far the best liveview mode, accurate (and fastest claimed by Olympus) AF in mirrored/LV modes, and affordable price for their bodies. Biggest problem? due to the small sensor, the viewfinders of Olympus cameras are exceptionally small, making it extremely hard to manual focus. Smaller sensor also makes olympus cameras more noisy than its competitors. But they are fixing this with bigger prism like the one in E-3 (same viewfinder size as a good APS-C camera!) and introducing newer sensors. Oh and also.... E system has official support of Leica lenses!!!