UWA Zoom with IS

So.....am I the only one who wishes someone would make an UWA Zoom with IS?

I think it would be great for handheld shots indoors. When I shoot UWA I nearly always want larger DOF which is why even though I often think of upgrading to the 16-35 I never actually do it.

you can use some pretty slow shutter speeds already...yeah, you can shoot at multiple seconds, or anything...but i'd imagine on a FF you could get away with 1/10 with some success...

I wouldn't want it for indoor use...maybe to show some motion in waterfalls that i didn't want to lug a tripod to though...the good thing about UWA's is it's pretty easy to get large DOF, and you don't need to stop down as much

side note...do you use an UWA much in austin? i'm headed there tomorrow...still debating on even bringing my camera...i was just thinking of bringing the 35f2 to keep it simple...

You can stabilize any lens you want with a tripod.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #15962355
You can stabilize any lens you want with a tripod.

This Personally I would either be shooting fast enough to hand hold the shot, or I'd use a tripod for longer exposures... You've got masses of DoF on an UWA anyway so you shouldn't lose out too much by knocking it back a stop or two when a tripod isn't available.

Does the ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS count?

Tommy1957 wrote in post #15962355
You can stabilize any lens you want with a tripod.

Absolutely.


Besides, with an UWA you can handhold long enough so that boredom, rather than camera shake, is the main problem.

Nikon makes a 16-35mm F/4 VR. On olympus (and possibly future panasonic m43 bodies), you have in-body stabilization, which does OK.
For example, my Samyang 7.5mm fisheye is stabilized on my olympus body. It's not all that effective on that focal length, but at least a good stop of difference in casual handholding.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #15962355
You can stabilize any lens you want with a tripod.

Sure, when a tripod is practical. But there are lots of places you cannot have a tripod or it simply isn't practical.

gasrocks wrote in post #15962411
Does the ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS count?

Not until they make one that works on a FF EOS Mount

TweakMDS wrote in post #15962436
Nikon makes a 16-35mm F/4 VR.

That would be perfect, but, I don't want one bad enough to switch systems for it.

I shot these at night handheld with my T3i and Canon 10-22 at ISO 800:

https://photography-on-the.net …1293278&highlig​ht=ron+jon

Plenty of depth of field there.

Only solution right now is the 24mm IS

Tommy1957 wrote in post #15962355
You can stabilize any lens you want with a tripod.

How do you set up a tripod while you're repelling down a canon and want to take a picture of a waterfall, just hiking out someplace and left your tripod behind, inside some dark place you can't use them, an ultra low shutter speed panning shot, or etc.

There's plenty of cases that a slow shutter speeds is wanted or the only way to get the shot and a tripod isn't possible, IS would help you get these shots. Granted short focal length are easier to get usable shots hand help at slow shutter speeds but I still have plenty with camera shake that a tripod just wasn't practical and/or possible and IS would have been great to have.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #15963806
There's plenty of cases that a slow shutter speeds is wanted or the only way to get the shot and a tripod isn't possible,

Really? Plenty of cases?

sas8888 wrote in post #15963088
Only solution right now is the 24mm IS

Well, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD is just as wide, has IS (VC = "Vibration Control" = IS), and is also a zoom. For that matter the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS is a zoom which goes to 24mm and has IS. The problem is those lenses zoom in the wrong direction.

I'd love to see some evidence that IS works beyond a certain point to make IS on an ultrawide viable. If you can hand hold at 1/SS then without IS I can go to 1/15 or so on my 17-40. A 4 stop IS system in theory would get me to around a half second, At what point does the effect of IS become negated by time?

gonzogolf wrote in post #15963862
I'd love to see some evidence that IS works beyond a certain point to make IS on an ultrawide viable. If you can hand hold at 1/SS then without IS I can go to 1/15 or so on my 17-40. A 4 stop IS system in theory would get me to around a half second, At what point does the effect of IS become negated by time?

When you have to run to the bathroom?...