16-35 f4 IS 'tripod sensing' IS

Having initially done some tests I thought that Canon had finally made a truly 'tripod sensing' IS - i.e. one that you could keep on in any situation in the 16-35.

Unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Today I was out shooting and these 4 crops are from a 5 bracket sequence on a tripod (I omitted the darkest since it is hard to see). This also happened on the previous 5 bracket sequence on one of the shots but fortunately not trusting the IS I did also take a sequence with IS off when I realized it was on. I was also in silent mode 1 in LV when I started the bracket, if that makes a difference to anyone.

Note that the much softer image (top right) was not at the beginning of the sequence, so it was not the IS starting up. In my previous tests of just taking one shot at a time I never got anything like this with IS on at any shutter speed. That's what made me hopeful that I could just leave IS on with this lens. Interestingly, unlike say the 24-105 all the 5 images in a bracket were aligned. The tripod sensing on the 16-35 is certainly the best I've seen, but I'll still be turning it off on a tripod.

I was also surprised that the softest shot occurred at a shutter speed of 1/30s. At this speed I would have expected IS on to be OK. When I've seen similar things with my other IS lenses it has been at lower shutter speeds, generally 1/10-1s.

Yes, I also turn it off now on a tripod. It is certainly better than the 24-105, but not the final answer. And don't even think about using IS when using multiple flash pops...

good to know, thanks for posting

a911s wrote in post #17295625
Yes, I also turn it off now on a tripod. It is certainly better than the 24-105

Hmmm, here's my 24-105 on a tripod with IS on/off...

Frank, what one is what? The one on the right looks sharper to me (at this res)

xpfloyd wrote in post #17295655
Frank, what one is what? The one on the right looks sharper to me (at this res)

Er, I can't remember. But there is no difference worth bothering with.

I thought my brain might have been playing tricks on me since I thought there was a difference to find I started thinking I could see the difference

hollis_f wrote in post #17295663
Er, I can't remember. But there is no difference worth bothering with.

If you use flash, you will notice blur problems with IS turned on for the 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200 II mounted on a tripod. Without flash it is intermittent and seems shutter speed dependent with 1/60 to 1/4 second being the worst (perhaps linked to mirror bounce).

a911s wrote in post #17295954
If you use flash, you will notice blur problems with IS turned on for the 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200 II mounted on a tripod. Without flash it is intermittent and seems shutter speed dependent with 1/60 to 1/4 second being the worst (perhaps linked to mirror bounce).

Er, excuse my skepticism, but... Says who?

I've never heard either allegation before.

if your tripod isn't solid or you aren't using MLU I can see IS causing a problem. it has happened to me. I usually turn IS off for long exposures but lately I have been experimenting with leaving it on.

hollis_f wrote in post #17295643
Hmmm, here's my 24-105 on a tripod with IS on/off...

Try a 30 second exposure and post your results
2 seconds doesn't give enough time for the IS to screw things up

What I don't understand why IS on/off is such a contentious and argumentative thing around here. There's a switch; if you get better results without it ( or even FEEL like you do), turn it off. If you don't feel like it's impacting your images, leave it on. Doesn't matter in the end. If there were no way to disable IS and we had to rely on the "sensing", that would be a discussion...but, as it is it's just arguing over a solved issue.

Snydremark wrote in post #17296659
What I don't understand why IS on/off is such a contentious and argumentative thing around here. There's a switch; if you get better results without it ( or even FEEL like you do), turn it off. If you don't feel like it's impacting your images, leave it on. Doesn't matter in the end. If there were no way to disable IS and we had to rely on the "sensing", that would be a discussion...but, as it is it's just arguing over a solved issue.

I am a little bit with you on this one. My default is to turn the IS off and ONLY switch it on when necessary.
If the light is dropping, you have run out of practical ISO, can't/don't want to open the lens up any more and shutter speed is getting low then turn the IS on! It is a great feature to have but you lens will function better (AF/tracking etc) without it so I only use it when needed.
I tried this in January this year and have been getting better results ever since, especially on moving subjects/wildlife, though I did use IS once when hand-holding my Canon 800 F5.6. This was not to stabilise the lens it was because I was having a bit of a wobbly day and I needed to stabilise the image in the viewfinder! In other words the photographer needed stabilization - not the lens. That's the trouble with Diabetes!
On a lens like the 16-35 F4 IS just turn it off and forget about it. With the ISO performance of your 5D3, if you can't get the shutter speed/ aperture that you want then the image probably won't be a keeper anyway.
All the best.

Although I don't have any examples handy, I recently shot a church interior with a 5D III and a 16 - 35 lens. Many of the exposures were around ten seconds long and they came out sharp as a tack even though I didn't shut the I.S. off.

Snydremark wrote in post #17296659
What I don't understand why IS on/off is such a contentious and argumentative thing around here. There's a switch; if you get better results without it ( or even FEEL like you do), turn it off. If you don't feel like it's impacting your images, leave it on. Doesn't matter in the end. If there were no way to disable IS and we had to rely on the "sensing", that would be a discussion...but, as it is it's just arguing over a solved issue.

Well, the 'issue' is that some of us have experienced first hand that Canon's claim of 'tripod sensing' IS has perhaps been distorted (no question it is better than the previous IS on a tripod). On one hand we/I would like to point this out to people who have not experienced this as something to potentially watch out for. On the other hand (and the real reason for my OP) is that there is an indication that Canon are moving towards an IS system that may truly never need to be turned off. As new lenses come out I think it is worth noting how well the IS does on a tripod because it is important for some of us.

The 16-35 f4 IS is IME very close to that and actually I thought it was there from my initial testing. Likely others such as James P may also have this impression from his experience. I'm just adding my experience, not trying to convince anyone one way or the other and I'm certainly not going to 'argue' about it.

James P wrote in post #17296796
Although I don't have any examples handy, I recently shot a church interior with a 5D III and a 16 - 35 lens. Many of the exposures were around ten seconds long and they came out sharp as a tack even though I didn't shut the I.S. off.

As I mentioned in my OP, this has also been my experience with this lens up to now - I have not been able to get an non-sharp single shot on a tripod with IS on. It's the best tripod sensing IS I have experienced.

Skipmaster J wrote in post #17296649
Try a 30 second exposure and post your results
2 seconds doesn't give enough time for the IS to screw things up

I would disagree. At 30s the IS can very well settle down and if it is only moving slightly for a few seconds you won't notice it on a 30s exposure.

hollis_f wrote in post #17295643
Hmmm, here's my 24-105 on a tripod with IS on/off...

I know you have posted this example before and I really do respect your tests on this, but just as you can maybe not explain my observations I can't explain yours.

Obviously me posting multiple blurry images and you posting multiple sharp images isn't going to 'settle' this. I'm not trying to be an 'ass', I don't think this should turn into an argument and I have no intention of trying to convince you to turn of IS if you (or anyone else) is happy leaving it on.