Wide angle IS

Why doesn't Canon have a wide angle L lens with IS?

I don't believe IS is needed on any lens, but I'm an odd duck. I leave it off.

15-85 is wide, and it's got IS. You asked essentially the same question in another post.

Are you shooting stills or video? Canon has released two wide angle primes with IS, which are geared toward video shooters. For stills using lenses under 35mm focal lengths, there would be limited situations where IS would be useful - e.g. handholding at 1/4s speeds where a tripod cannot be used.

Yes, this was asked twice.

It is for stills with a full frame Canon. It might be used under low light but I can bump up the ISO in the Mark iii..

'needed' isn't the right word to use...will it help...yeah sometimes...it all depends on the shooting situation if you're shooting at 20mm and the light is so low that your shutters are going to be 1/10 then yeah it would help to have IS...

however, i don't think there's a FF lens that goes wide that has IS...widest you can get is 24mm with IS...i think

Chet wrote in post #14102624
Yes, this was asked twice.

Threads merged.
berrywoodson, your duplicate threads were reported & have been merged into one. FYI, it's considered spamming to start the same thread in different areas of the forum.
If you make a mistake & need help, use the "Report Post"

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Sorry. This is my first posting.

The 24-105mm has IS. 24mm is pretty wide.
I'd like a 17-40mm IS.

The 17-55 is one of the best lenses made and it has IS. You don't seem to need IS if you go much wider than 17mm in my experience.

The 17-55 is not an L lens but the quality isn't far behind. The glass is there.....the barrel isn't quite there.....still a great lens.

berrywoodson wrote in post #14102450
Why doesn't Canon have a wide angle L lens with IS?

Define wide.

'Cause I would say they do.

1. IS adds an expense to the lens.

2. UWA lenses don't really need IS since they can handle much lower shutter speeds. generally if you are using a wide angle in low light you will be using a tripod anyhow.

3. the wide angle lenses that have IS are zooms, you don't really needed it for the wide end, you need it for the long end, especially if its not a constant 2.8 lens.

so the lens manufacturers don't see a market in adding IS to UWA lenses, they don't make it since they most people wouldn't pay extra for a UWA that has it.

now video is a different animal, there is a market for wide angle with IS, but it better be really quiet IS.

Canon have announced a 24mm f/2.8 IS and discontinued the one without IS.

nate42nd wrote in post #14104028
The 17-55 is not an L lens but the quality isn't far behind. The glass is there.....the barrel isn't quite there.....still a great lens.

Well, not really, considering it can't cover a FF sensor... but enough nitpicking!

If you follow the general rule of thumb of trying to keep your SS faster than 1/FL, you'll see that you get it to some relatively long exposures with WA/UWA - long enough that subject movement starts to trump handshake. As such, the ability to hand hold an additional 3 or 4 stops might be a questionable benefit (I usually don't shoot slower than 1/40, whether or not my FL is shorter). Frankly, on a WA/UWA, I'd rather not have to spend the additional $$$ for IS.