Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 01 Oct 2012 (Monday) 08:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How important is "IS" on an Ultra-Wide?

 
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,578 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1657
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 01, 2012 11:11 |  #16

Earwax69 wrote in post #15064911 (external link)
no need under 35mm on crop I'd say. Anyway, such a lens dont exist.

No longer true:

24mm IS (external link)
28mm IS (external link)

Whether anyone's willing to BUY them is another story :)


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Roxie2401
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
355 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Western PA
     
Oct 01, 2012 11:36 |  #17

Charlie wrote in post #15064700 (external link)
I would suggest you go FF first before buying a 17-40 lens. the 24-105 on FF is even wider than your 17-85 on your 7D.


Well, here is my real issue - FF will come (sometime) but for now the 24-105 isn't wide enough on my crop 7D. I just don't want to buy an UWA for the 7D and not be able to use it ultimately on the FF - which is why I was looking at the 17-40 or Tokina 12-24 (but I think it will work but maybe not at 12mm on FF).

Guess its silly but I sort of want to buy only one lens (UWA) that can be useful on both the crop and FF. No such think as "ideal?"




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vixen89
Goldmember
Avatar
4,521 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Aug 2010
Location: D-Town, TX
     
Oct 01, 2012 12:18 |  #18

Roxie2401 wrote in post #15065166 (external link)
Well, here is my real issue - FF will come (sometime) but for now the 24-105 isn't wide enough on my crop 7D. I just don't want to buy an UWA for the 7D and not be able to use it ultimately on the FF - which is why I was looking at the 17-40 or Tokina 12-24 (but I think it will work but maybe not at 12mm on FF).

Guess its silly but I sort of want to buy only one lens (UWA) that can be useful on both the crop and FF. No such think as "ideal?"

I use the 16-35 II interchangeably on my 60D and 5D3, they both still feel like UWA's to me regardless of body just cause of the massive distortion it gives. It's real hard to say but I guess a 12-24 would give you that feel. I mean if you're swapping to just 5D3 I would just take advantage and buy future lenses solely for the FF sensor.


I'm actively lazy!! :D | Gear List | photovxn.com (under construction)external link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,376 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6394
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 01, 2012 12:50 |  #19

Roxie2401 wrote in post #15065166 (external link)
Well, here is my real issue - FF will come (sometime) but for now the 24-105 isn't wide enough on my crop 7D. I just don't want to buy an UWA for the 7D and not be able to use it ultimately on the FF - which is why I was looking at the 17-40 or Tokina 12-24 (but I think it will work but maybe not at 12mm on FF).

Guess its silly but I sort of want to buy only one lens (UWA) that can be useful on both the crop and FF. No such think as "ideal?"

dont even consider EF-s or equivalent lenses if you're going FF. The tokina is not an option.


Sony A7riii/A9 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,578 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1657
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 01, 2012 14:42 |  #20

Poppycock; unless you are going to make the switch to full frame in the immediate future, buy for what you have now. There's no good reason to neuter your abilities for something that is going to happen "some day"; since "some day" doesn't, frequently, arrive.

If you just need wider than 24mm, look at the 17-50 OS from Sigma, or the 15-85 from Canon. If you are really looking UWA, check into the newer model of the Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 10-22. Since there aren't any EF lenses that act as UWAs for the crop bodies, only EF-S lenses are going to be your true options for getting those UWA shots for now.

IF/when you get around to dumping the money into a FF body, then worry about the 17-40 vs 16-35 problem.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,229 posts
Likes: 1940
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Oct 01, 2012 14:54 as a reply to  @ post 15064937 |  #21

IS will be least useful when shooting with UWA lenses because it is relatively easy to gain enough shutter speed for sharp images.

However, if you are working in low light levels, it is cwertainly nice to have an f/2.8 sperture available.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Oct 01, 2012 15:04 as a reply to  @ post 15064937 |  #22

I'm very thankful for the IS on my 15-85 @15mm. Often getting a sunset shot, or after the sun has set, where i don't want to bump up the ISO( lot's of underexposed areas/shadows where noise would show up).


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kdrk888
Senior Member
Avatar
404 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Oct 01, 2012 15:54 |  #23

Is "IS" necessary for UWA? No. Is it helpful to have it? I think so. Otherwise why does Nikon put it in its 16-35? Canon puts IS in its 24 and 28 primes. Everything else equal, I will gladly pay a reasonable extra amount of money for the IS feature, even with UWA lense.

Why Canon chose not to put IS in its new 24-70 is beyond me, I am not buying one because of that. But I know there are plenty of folks who don't feel the same.


Douglas
Canon, Nikon, Sony. Too many gears, too little time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Oct 01, 2012 16:06 |  #24

kdrk888 wrote in post #15066289 (external link)
Is "IS" necessary for UWA? No. Is it helpful to have it? I think so. Otherwise why does Nikon put it in its 16-35? Canon puts IS in its 24 and 28 primes. Everything else equal, I will gladly pay a reasonable extra amount of money for the IS feature, even with UWA lense.

Why Canon chose not to put IS in its new 24-70 is beyond me, I am not buying one because of that. But I know there are plenty of folks who don't feel the same.

Agreed on all points.
I'd love to see what IS could do on the 10-22. If i'm careful, i can shoot at ~1/20 handheld and standing.. maybe a touch longer, but with IS.. that could possibly be pushed towards 1/2 second.

While tripods are generally used with these lenses, sometimes a tripod can't get into the spot you want for your composition... and UWA's are great for getting close, and distortion. Think of taking a river shot, at 1/2 sec., handheld, and a low/close perspective. :)


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Oct 01, 2012 17:26 |  #25

Roxie2401 wrote in post #15064418 (external link)
I want to go wider & bump up to FF so I have been looking at the 17-40L and wonder if I will miss the IS at that range?

If you like to hand hold shots in the 1/2 - 1/20 second range, then you will miss the stabilization. I have many excellent shots from my 50D & 17-55 f/2.8 where image stabilization allowed me to capture exposures in this range.

Now that I shoot more often with a 5D II & 17-40, I find that I am more likely to use a tripod and less likely to "risk" a hand held shot at ridiculously low shutter speeds. Nikon has the 16-35 f/4 VR lens - I wish Canon would add IS to their 16-35.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Guapo
Senior Member
Avatar
547 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Oct 01, 2012 17:36 as a reply to  @ Mark-B's post |  #26

I don't seem to need it much on my 17-50 Sigma for stills, but it does come in handy with video.


- Steven
Canon 7D

Nifty Fifty - Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX DC OS - Canon 70-200 f2.8
L IS MkI - Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-1 - Calumet Genesis 200 - misc

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroimage
Goldmember
2,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2007
     
Oct 01, 2012 17:44 |  #27

Snydremark wrote in post #15065986 (external link)
Since there aren't any EF lenses that act as UWAs for the crop bodies, only EF-S lenses are going to be your true options for getting those UWA shots for now.

12mm is considered ultrawide on a crop camera. Although Canon doesn't have any EF lenses wider than 14mm, Sigma has the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM that is a regular full frame rectilinear lens that will give UWA results on both crop and full-frame cameras.

If you buy a used Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, then when you are done with it, you still have a used Canon EF-S 10-22 and can resell it for about what you paid more or less and get to enjoy it until you decide to buy a full frame camera almost for free. It isn't necessary to avoid EF-S lenses since they are high demand items and therefore easy to sell.


Photo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,578 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1657
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 01, 2012 19:42 |  #28

Nice. Thought that one was one of the weird, EF but only built for crop sort of lenses.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,335 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2947
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 01, 2012 20:27 |  #29

unless you're going FF in the next month...buy the best lens for your current camera...pairing an ultra wide with your 24-105L makes more sense than getting a 17-40L...you can easily trade a 10-22mm for a 17-40L, probably to another crop user that incorrectly got the 17-40L because they wanted to future proof their lens purchases....


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroimage
Goldmember
2,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2007
     
Oct 01, 2012 22:27 |  #30

Snydremark wrote in post #15067181 (external link)
Nice. Thought that one was one of the weird, EF but only built for crop sort of lenses.

The Sigma is actually built for full frame. 12mm on full frame is crazy wide. 122°! The new version II is apparently a bit sharper in the corners but has significant barrel distortion. My older EX version actually has very little distortion which I think is more important. I use DxO Optics Pro to clean up the minor residual distortion and the chromatic aberration.


Photo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,500 views & 0 likes for this thread
How important is "IS" on an Ultra-Wide?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guashumerda
886 guests, 188 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.