Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW E90
It's true that the 24-70mm has no IS but the faster aperture can help freeze motion (IS won't). To be honest in low light conditions even the 2.8 is inadequate a lot of times (especially with fairly fast subjects). I debated between that 24-70 and the 24-105 (reach & IS) and went with the former because I don't really care for IS and the 2.8 aperture is more important to me than the extra reach. With that being said, if you have a good camera that performs well at 3200 ISO, the f/4.0 is fine. I just really like the 2.8 for the bokeh.
|
oh no, I am not arguing against having the extra stop helps! I know that and I agree with you 100%.
I am just saying, even at f2.8, like you said, in an in-door situation, even at say ISO 1200, you'll probably still need to shoot at 1/60 to get some clear pictures (I'm assuming no external flash used).
I'm just saying, IS really helps a lot in low-lit environment, even tho at 1 fewer stop in the aperture. Obviously, cant argue against the 24-70, since that was one of the lens that I was considering before my 17-55, but oh well, until I go FF, 17-55 will do.
For zoom lens everyday combo, I personally love my set up of 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS..
All the rest, only prime glasses do the justice IMO.