Wide angle IS

maybe it's time to switch
http://www.photozone.d​e …/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff

^ All I can say for sure on this topic is *I* would not pay for IS in an ultra to wide angle lens.

If it was free, sure!

WhyFi wrote in post #14109778
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.

I do use teles for landscapes, and wides for sports and people. You are preaching to the choir.

However, your argument is still invalid. The vast majority of photographers use wides for landscapes and wide scenes, and telephotos for sports and wildlife. Sports are usually shot wide open (why else would anyone use a 400 f/2.8 over a 400 f/5.6?), and so too wildlife (300L, 500L, 600L, 800L etc). Landscapes are typically photographed stopped down (e.g. f/8-f/16 range). I have used f/2 for landscape - but that makes me unusual.

It is true I am generalising.

But so are you.

I am at least basing my generalisations on what the vast majority of people do. Does it describe everyone? No. But your argument describes even less people.

smorter wrote in post #14110464
However, your argument is still invalid. The vast majority of photographers use wides for landscapes and wide scenes, and telephotos for sports and wildlife. Sports are usually shot wide open (why else would anyone use a 400 f/2.8 over a 400 f/5.6?), and so too wildlife (300L, 500L, 600L, 800L etc). Landscapes are typically photographed stopped down (e.g. f/8-f/16 range). I have used f/2 for landscape - but that makes me unusual.

So now the "vast majority" of photographers tote around 400 f/2.8Ls, 500Ls, etc, etc? That's a hoot. Yeah, you're in touch with the vast majority - glad they chose you as a spokesperson.

People select their aperture for two reasons - DoF and motion (both subject and camera). If you're going to draw up generalizations, you have to account for all of those considerations, which you're not. Is your "vast majority," shooting teles wide open for DoF considerations, to isolate their subject? Or they shooting wide open because they want the highest SS possible? Or are they shooting wide open because they want the lowest ISO possible while still maintaining a SS that avoids motion and shake? Would they stop down more, with better IS, if it meant that they would only need to consider the SS necessary to avoid movement in their subject and not be concerned with shake? Too factors to make too many assumptions.

And again, the lens selections of both Canon and Nikon refute your "I'm try to look smart by adopting a contrarian opinion" claim - The fact that there are lenses like the 14-24 f/2.8, 16-35 f/2.8, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 completely dashes your "everybody shoots WA stopped down, hur, hur, hur" assumption.

smorter wrote in post #14110464
It is true I am generalising.

But so are you.

I am at least basing my generalisations on what the vast majority of people do. Does it describe everyone? No. But your argument describes even less people.

And how is it that you know this? Have data to back it up? No? Okay, I guess that I have to dismiss your theory (that IS is more needed on WA than tele) with "your argument is invalid," then.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I still believe IS is even more important for wide angle lenses than fast telephoto primes.

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. Its not like on a telphoto where you are staying the fraction of the second range.

Mark-B wrote in post #14108885
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 just took this shot a couple of nights ago, so I thought I would come back and share. This image is nowhere close to perfect, and it isn't anywhere close to being sharp. It's also not an unrecognizable blur. It is a good real world example on just how far image stabilization can go.

My normal technique for hand held long exposures is to stand with my weak leg forward and strong leg back with my elbows tucked tightly into my sides and the camera pressed firmly against my forehead while I look through the viewfinder. I couldn't do any of that for this shot because I was sitting in my car at a traffic light. Sitting down in an idling car with plenty of vibrations. Sitting in a confined space where I can't use steady hand holding techniques.

Canon 50D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, ISO 100, f/2.8, 24mm, 1.6 seconds hand held. (this is the +2 shot of a bracketed series)

I would love IS on a wide angle lens. If Canon came out with an equivalent to the Nikkor 16-35mm F/4 VR, I'd be all over it even if it was $1250. People say you don't need IS on wide angles.. but it doesn't hurt. I don't always have a tripod with me, some locations don't allow tripods, or sometimes taking the time to pull out a tripod would result in missing the shot. I love having some motion blur in my shots, be it water or light trails. Hand holding 1 second exposures would be amazing.

crops have the 17-50 variants and 17 is wide enough for most scenarios. FF doesnt even have that option yet....

the 24/28 ripoffs come to mind. At least tamron is making a 24-70 VC version, and I'll sell off my brick when that happens, unless the QC is bad like the sigmas. I've had good luck with my tamrons in the past.

While APS-C may have 17-55mm IS and 15-85mm IS, the FF has 24-105 IS...so why are folks complaining about 'no wide angle for FF'?!

<35mm = Wide Angle on FF
28mm on FF = 18mm on APS-C
24mm on FF = 15mm on APS-C

Now there is a new Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS, a new Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS, both for FF cameras.

There is no SUPER-WIDE lens with IS, for either format!

Wilt wrote in post #14120339
While APS-C may have 17-55mm IS, the FF has 24-105 IS...so why are folks complaining about 'no wide angle for FF'?!

The 17-55 on crop cameras and 24-105 on FF cameras are "standard" zooms. The 10-22 on crop and 16-35 or 17-40 on FF are "wide" zooms. Canon does not offer a wide zoom with IS.

Mark-B wrote in post #14120404
The 17-55 on crop cameras and 24-105 on FF cameras are "standard" zooms. The 10-22 on crop and 16-35 or 17-40 on FF are "wide" zooms. Canon does not offer a wide zoom with IS.

I modified my earlier post with additional comments, about the same time that you had posted your remark. I agree there is no SUPER wide FL with IS for either format, in fixed focal length or in zoom design.

the 24-105 is f4, and that's kinda lame...

chardog wrote in post #14120437
the 24-105 is f4, and that's kinda lame...

And now there is the 24mm f/2.8 IS .

24mm (FF equivalent) is pretty wide. You will get pretty good wide-angle photo at 1/15s or even 1/8s

IMO, Putting IS on a 17mm or wider brings very little benefit. Shooting at 1/15s or even 1/8s is very possible without IS. Do you really need to shoot slower than 1/8s handheld?

If you shoot moving objects, 1/3s is probably too slow to get non-blurry photos. And if you shoot non-moving objects, use a tripod and you don't need IS.