Wide angle IS

WhyFi wrote in post #14104810
Well, not really, considering it can't cover a FF sensor... but enough nitpicking!

True, btu the OP was wondering about "Wide" L glass with IS and the 17-55 is about as close as it gets.....plus not many people wondering about lenses use FF bodies. I ussume he has a crop. I hear ya though. I wish the 17-55 WAS an EF lens because I love it and if I went FF I would have to give it up

generally if you are using a wide angle in low light you will be using a tripod anyhow.

not if you have IS or don't have a tripod with you or don't have the inclination to use a tripod. it amazes me that anyone would not want another 4-stops of ability to shoot hand held. with IS you'll just get sharper images more consistently and in a broader range of conditions.

ed rader

nate42nd wrote in post #14104949
True, btu the OP was wondering about "Wide" L glass with IS and the 17-55 is about as close as it gets.....plus not many people wondering about lenses use FF bodies. I ussume he has a crop. I hear ya though. I wish the 17-55 WAS an EF lens because I love it and if I went FF I would have to give it up

he has a FF body though...a 24-105 is wider on a FF than the 17-55 is on a crop...

berrywoodson wrote in post #14102706
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..

ed rader wrote in post #14104993
it amazes me that anyone would not want another 4-stops of ability to shoot hand held.

Again, it depends upon the situation - if it's a WA-> short tele zoom, I find a lot more value in IS and would pay the typical IS premium. If it's a UWA -> WA zoom (or a WA/UWA prime), I'd gladly take one with IS if it was within a couple hundred dollars of a non-IS version, but if there was more of a premium for IS, which would be likely, my money would be better spent elsewhere. Your pocketbook may vary.

Nikon's 16-35 VR isn't that expensive. IMO, a Canon (or third party) equivalent would be great.

I simply have little need for IS on wide lenses. They are so much easier to hold at lower shutter speeds. Plus cameras keep getting higher and higher usable ISOs, further off-setting the need for IS on all but the longest lenses.

IMO, is sort of a marketing gimmick on an 18-55 or 17-55... Canon didn't have much choice but to add it on lenses that target entry-level and mid-level shooters, since the competition was offering it. But I bet if the IS failed on those short zooms, some users might not even notice. And, presumably, someone choosing a FF camera and lenses to use on it would be a bit more experienced, would have a pretty good idea of their limitationd and how to steady their shots.

Don't get me wrong, I love IS... On lenses longer than 100mm. In fact, IS was one of the key reasons I switched to Canon years ago.... They were the only ones offering it at that time. But I was shooting with film, too... ISO 50, 100 and 200 mostly. Rarely any faster than 400. Still, even with DSLRs that I feel comfortable using ISO 3200 and 6400, I get shots I couldn't otherwise and I wouldn't want to be without IS on 70-200, 300mm and 500mm lenses. I like having it on 28-135 that only cost me $250 used, and would be willing to pay a little extra for a 135/2, 200/2.8 or 400/5.6 that had IS.

Sure, if it's free or costs very little... or I simply don't have a choice... I'll take IS on shorter lenses too. It can't hurt. (Well, it does add complexity to both mechanism and optical formula, but it's proven pretty reliable, maybe even "fail safe"... and you do have to remember to turn off some of the simpler types of IS on a tripod.)

But, given a choice and if there were any significant savings involved, I'd opt for 16 or 17-to-whatever or 24-to-anything-less-than-100mm without IS over a lens in these focal length that has it... at higher cost.

I can handhold most lenses at or slightly below shutter speeds the reciprocal their focal length, even on a crop camera (theoretically you should use the 1/shutter speed x the lens factor... such as 1.6X with the APS-C cameras). But I try not to go below 1/30 or maybe 1/25 handheld even with very wide lenses... That's starting to get into "mirror slap" territory anyway, where there's more to getting a sharp, blur-free shot than just holding the camera steady. IS can help with shutter slap, but MLU or Live View is better.... and by then the camera is usually on a tripod or at least a monopod anyway. With some IS lenses, you have to remember to turn it off manually, too, when using the lens on tripod.

However, I reserve the right to change my mind... If my hands are less steady as I get older!

amfoto1 wrote in post #14107565
I simply have little need for IS on wide lenses. They are so much easier to hold at lower shutter speeds. Plus cameras keep getting higher and higher usable ISOs, further off-setting the need for IS on all but the longest lenses.

You are only imagining a very limited range of photographic opportunities. There are many, many situations where I intentionally want a slow shutter speed for a desired effect in my pictures.

I would be first in line to buy a 16-35 f/2.8 IS, or even a 17-40 f/4 IS to match Nikon's offering.

ed rader wrote in post #14104993
generally if you are using a wide angle in low light you will be using a tripod anyhow.

not if you have IS or don't have a tripod with you or don't have the inclination to use a tripod. it amazes me that anyone would not want another 4-stops of ability to shoot hand held. with IS you'll just get sharper images more consistently and in a broader range of conditions.

ed rader

It amazes me that people think that a good tripod can be replaced with IS. I'd like to see you get four extra stops past say 1/10. No IS is going to steady that image, its simply to long for you to hand hold. Its not like on a telphoto where you are staying the fraction of the second range.

Until dslr started shooting video, nobody cared if the WA lenses had IS.

mike_311 wrote in post #14108728
I'd like to see you get four extra stops past say 1/10. No IS is going to steady that image, its simply to long for you to hand hold.

I can easily hand hold for 1/2 second at 17mm with IS. I've successfully done 1 second many times, but it may take more than one attempt. I've posted plenty of samples in the past in these forums.

mike_311 wrote in post #14108728
It amazes me that people think that a good tripod can be replaced with IS. I'd like to see you get four extra stops past say 1/10. No IS is going to steady that image, its simply to long for you to hand hold. Its not like on a telphoto where you are staying the fraction of the second range.

Until dslr started shooting video, nobody cared if the WA lenses had IS.

While certainly there will be situations which absolutely cannot be done without tripod, there are plenty of circumstances where IS is a mighty fine substitute in a lot of situations. I had a period of time when I had bad back issues, with worse than usual ability to steady myself, and I shot this series. Crops, not the entire frame.
Here, I shot WA FL with IS (bottom row) and without IS (top row), progressing down 1/12, 1/6 and 1/3

ok i concede that its possible, heck i've even done poor man IS myself with burst rate.

but my original point was that canon or anyone else didn't see a market for it or else they would have made one. there will always be people who who pay extra for feature most don't need, but not enough for a lens manufacturer to make it.

mike_311 wrote in post #14109281
but my original point was that canon or anyone else didn't see a market for it or else they would have made one. there will always be people who who pay extra for feature most don't need, but not enough for a lens manufacturer to make it.

What about the $1100 Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR?

I am of the opinion that Wide Angles need IS more than telephotos for the following two reasons:

1. Wide angles are often used stopped down, whereas most people use fast telephotos wide open. Stopping down decreases light availability, increasing utility of IS
2. Wide angles are used for large, expansive scenes where subject movement has minimal impact on motion blur, compared to a telephoto lens zoomed in on a subject. Therefore, the argument that even with IS you get motion blur anyway at shutter speeds like 1/5 etc. is not that significant

mike_311 wrote in post #14108728
It amazes me that people think that a good tripod can be replaced with IS. I'd like to see you get four extra stops past say 1/10. No IS is going to steady that image, its simply to long for you to hand hold. Its not like on a telphoto where you are staying the fraction of the second range.

Until dslr started shooting video, nobody cared if the WA lenses had IS.

I was out hiking with my kids carrying just a body with the 24-105L and no tripod when we came across this waterfall. This isn't wide angle, but I did take this shot at 1/5th of a second at 75mm focal length using the IS.

I guess I'd agree that IS is not a huge demand frequently on wider lenses, but it is handy mostly in situations where you want to slow down the shutter speed for some deliberate blur.

It's also handy when you are stopping down a lot for DOF in low light situations where tripods are banned. Think museums etc.

smorter wrote in post #14109618
I am of the opinion that Wide Angles need IS more than telephotos for the following two reasons:

1. Wide angles are often used stopped down, whereas most people use fast telephotos wide open. Stopping down decreases light availability, increasing utility of IS
2. Wide angles are used for large, expansive scenes where subject movement has minimal impact on motion blur, compared to a telephoto lens zoomed in on a subject. Therefore, the argument that even with IS you get motion blur anyway at shutter speeds like 1/5 etc. is not that significant

Your two reasons make an awful lot of assumptions.

1a) You assume that people shoot telephotos wide open more often than not - we don't know this to be the case. 1b) You don't attribute a reason for people shooting wide open - isn't it possible that people are avoiding stopping down because of SS/handshake concerns? 1c) You assume that, more often than not, people shoot WAs stopped down - we don't know this to be the case, the fact that there are plenty of fast, short lenses contradicts this, though.

2a) I can't speak for anyone else, but I often shoot WA/UWA so that I can place a subject in the foreground and then tell a story with the background. My foreground subject often occupies a significant amount of the frame and is just as prone to motion blur as it would be if it were shot with a tele with similar framing. -edited to add- 2b) This argument also seems to be predicated on the notion that teles are primarily use for (relatively) tight compositions and ignores the fact that people frequently use teles for landscapes, too.