f/2.8 with IS --- vs --- f/4 with IS

[coachboz68]

I'm going to ask an imperfect question, so bear with me, but I think it will lead to the answers I am looking for.  Iv'e started a new thread but this topic arises in many other threads in different bits and pieces. 

Let's take a lense like the EF 16-35 where we have the choice of f/4 with IS that (I believe) is rated at something like 4 Stops, and the f/2.8 with no IS. 

Let's further assume that I'm going to do walk-around city/street shooting where I will most frequently shooting WITHOUT a tripod. 

While the 2.8 affords me faster shutter speeds, I am afraid that the shallow DOF will be undesirable in many shots.  Therefore, for mostly handheld shooting where shallow DOF is not desireable, would one be better off with the IS with a min of f/4 given shutter speed (for these kinds of pics) is not the major concern?  

I know there are a lot of variables still left unexplored, so the answer will likely still be "it depends" but hopefully this the above scenario is enough to help me start understanding the real-life tradeoffs between a smaller aperture with IS vs a larger aperture without.  

Thanks

[kvbarkley]

If you don't need f/2.8 than IS is always better.

What camera? A 16-35 is wideangle on a FF camera, so IS is not as necessary. It is a medium lens on Copped frame which is more likely to need IS.

[coachboz68]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

What camera? 

---

1DX II

[Waddizzle]

It is a wide angle lens.  With a fast shutter, the lack of IS won’t matter.  Besides, the only times I use f/2.8 with my 16-35 is in close quarters when I am indoors.  Otherwise, I am shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 outdoors on bright sunny days.

[wq9nsc]

How often do you think you would be shooting with a really slow shutter speed?  IS is nice but with most lens I would take 1 stop over IS any day if that was the choice because I am often shooting action where I need a fast shutter speed anyway so IS is less useful and important.  

With a 16-35 even if you close down the lens to maximize depth of field on most recent DSLR models you can bump the ISO up quite a bit before noise and lack of DR become a problem which is often preferable to choosing an abnormally slow shutter speed.

I would also take a close look how the two choices compare for IQ across a wide range of conditions while paying particular attention to typical shooting conditions you envision. The 16-35 is a lens I have never used so I am not familiar with how the various versions behave in terms of wide open sharpness, espescially across the full area of the sensor but that is something I would look at closely before buying.

I guess I am "old school" since I started shooting way back in the film days when IS wasn't available so it is something I like having but for me and my typical usage it isn't the most important criteria while for others it will be.  

Rodger

[coachboz68]

---

@wq9nsc wrote:

How often do you think you would be shooting with a really slow shutter speed?  IS is nice but with most lens I would take 1 stop over IS any day if that was the choice because I am often shooting action where I need a fast shutter speed anyway so IS is less useful and important.  

---

Thanks, Rodger.  90% of my historical shooting is fast-action sports (hence, the 1DX II love affair I have).  For sports, I've very comfortable with my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 24-70 f/2.8.  Shooting groups of people and couples is proving to be new training ground for me with the DOF stuff frustrating me as I learn.  Practice is required, but in addition to field practice, I like to understand some of the more theoretical stuff behind this stuff.  

To answer your question specifically, I imagine that if I'm doing city-walk type shots, it might be slower shutter speeds quite a lot if I want good DOF but in lower light.  

---

@wq9nsc wrote:

With a 16-35 even if you close down the lens to maximize depth of field on most recent DSLR models you can bump the ISO up quite a bit before noise and lack of DR become a problem which is often preferable to choosing an abnormally slow shutter speed.

---

Agree.  I upgraded to the 1DXII from a 10yo 7D M1 and was absolutely thrilled with everything about the DR and ISO sensitivity.  I just took some shots last night at a very dark restaurant and with a little NR in Lightroom, 25600 shots were perfectly usable for family viewing purposes.  

---

@wq9nsc wrote:

I would also take a close look how the two choices compare for IQ across a wide range of conditions while paying particular attention to typical shooting conditions you envision. The 16-35 is a lens I have never used so I am not familiar with how the various versions behave in terms of wide open sharpness, espescially across the full area of the sensor but that is something I would look at closely before buying.

---

I will definitely do some renting first, and because it's a newer type of shooting for me, I have a lot to learn before I even know the typical conditions I will experience.  Like I said, sports shooting is really the only type of photography with which I am very comfortable.  

Thanks again for all the help.  

[ebiggs1]

Coach,

I've very comfortable with my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 24-70 f/2.8.

One more good reason to go with the f2.8 version is you already have a couple f2.8 lenses.  I think it works out better if the lens stable is, well, stable.  Make sense, all three lenses are f2.8 so there is no worry about switching when you are in an important shoot.  Will this lens work?  It will if the others did sorta thing.

You do need to learn more about DOF as it is not that shallow at 16mm on a 1DX.  Think of this, my friend, if you don't need f2.8 and you own the f2.8 version, you don't need to use it.  It has f4 just like the other one but if you need f2.8 and don't have it available, you are screwed. Do you want to give that fact up for IS that may be of little value anyway on a WA zoom?

No, no way, not never!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Coach,

I've very comfortable with my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 24-70 f/2.8.

One more good reason to go with the f2.8 version is you already have a couple f2.8 lenses.  I think it works out better if the lens stable is, well, stable.  Make sense, all three lenses are f2.8 so there is no worry about switching when you are in an important shoot.  Will this lens work?  It will if the others did sorta thing.

You do need to learn more about DOF as it is not that shallow at 16mm on a 1DX.  Think of this, my friend, if you don't need f2.8 and you own the f2.8 version, you don't need to use it.  It has f4 just like the other one but if you need f2.8 and don't have it available, you are screwed. Do you want to give that fact up for IS that may be of little value anyway on a WA zoom?

No, no way, not never!

---

To add to Ernie's point, note that modern autofocus lenses do their focusing at their widest aperture, which improves speed and accuracy. So you may be making good use of the wider aperture, even when you think you're not.

[coachboz68]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

---

To add to Ernie's point, note that modern autofocus lenses do their focusing at their widest aperture, which improves speed and accuracy. So you may be making good use of the wider aperture, even when you think you're not.

---

No kidding... feels like I never stop learning, which is why I love this as a serious hobby.  Nice little nugget.  

[coachboz68]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

You do need to learn more about DOF as it is not that shallow at 16mm on a 1DX.  Think of this, my friend, if you don't need f2.8 and you own the f2.8 version, you don't need to use it.  It has f4 just like the other one but if you need f2.8 and don't have it available, you are screwed. Do you want to give that fact up for IS that may be of little value anyway on a WA zoom?

No, no way, not never!

---

This thread is giving me the exact info for which I hoped.  I think my attraction to the IS was coming from a scenario that seems very unlikely, which would be needing a narrower aperture for DOF and not having enough light for a faster shutter speed, hence wanting the IS to help me with the clear image.  But after realzing that especialy with a wide angle lense, DOF is going to be way less of an issue, then (assuming one can afford the extra cost) the 2.8 is the better approach, all things considered.  

Also, regarding hyperfocal length, from sports shooting I have learned to intuit the general scenarios where my DOF is going to be shallow or deep, (but honestly that matters so much less than getting the great action shot).  I will start learning more about the mathematical calculations to determine it vs just gut as that will help me with the types of shooting I am starting to explore.  Thanks everyone!