Is image stabilization worth the price for a wide angle lens?

I have a Canon 50D and will be getting either the 16-35 F4L IS lens or the 17-40 F4L non-IS lens. I have a 70-200 F4L with IS and I think it's a valuable asset. But with the rule of thumb that says the shutter speed should be no slower than the lens focal length (handheld) to prevent blur, is it worth it to pay $360 for IS with these lenses? I doubt that I will ever be using a shutter speed slower than 1/60.

marchboom wrote in post #17496224
I have a Canon 50D and will be getting either the 16-35 F4L IS lens or the 17-40 F4L non-IS lens. I have a 70-200 F4L with IS and I think it's a valuable asset. But with the rule of thumb that says the shutter speed should be no slower than the lens focal length (handheld) to prevent blur, is it worth it to pay $360 for IS with these lenses? I doubt that I will ever be using a shutter speed slower than 1/60.

Heya,

Personally, I have no need for IS on an ultrawide. On a wide, yes. But Ultrawide, no. My 35mm is the widest I have with IS and I like having it, but I've yet to need it or be in a situation where I really needed it. Most of my really wide angle stuff is on a tripod, or outdoors in good light. So I really just don't need IS on my wide stuff.

Depends on what you're doing with it.

No matter the angle, if you're hand holding, IS is a good feature to have access to. Is it worth getting the 16-35 F4L IS just for the IS over the 17-40L? To me, no. But again, I wouldn't be hand holding that lens exclusively and would more likely be on a tripod with it. But that's my use. I'd probably get the 17-40 and save a buck for something else.

Very best,

what are you shooting subject wise as that woukd help.

marchboom wrote in post #17496224
I have a Canon 50D and will be getting either the 16-35 F4L IS lens or the 17-40 F4L non-IS lens. I have a 70-200 F4L with IS and I think it's a valuable asset. But with the rule of thumb that says the shutter speed should be no slower than the lens focal length (handheld) to prevent blur, is it worth it to pay $360 for IS with these lenses? I doubt that I will ever be using a shutter speed slower than 1/60.

That shutter speed rule is very rough, and intended for 35mm format cameras. With APS-C format cameras, use a somewhat faster speed ... and if you want to take advantage of the increases in sensor resolution that have happened over the years, go faster still.

Those are not wide angle lenses on a crop. They are normal range zooms with poor zoom ratios.

Why put a FF lens on a crop body? Costs more, weighs more. The EF-S 18-55mm STM is an excellent lens, cheap, light, sharp, and better zoom ratio. And has IS.

I have the 17-40 and 35IS. With the 35 @ f/2 in dim light, I need the IS. With the 17-40 in bright sunshine at f/8, not so much. It totally depends on what you do with your lenses.

Oh, I must be shakier than most folks. 1/focal length doesn't work for me. Not of FF, and certainly not on crop.

Archibald wrote in post #17496351
That shutter speed rule is very rough, and intended for 35mm format cameras. With APS-C format cameras, use a somewhat faster speed ... and if you want to take advantage of the increases in sensor resolution that have happened over the years, go faster still.

Those are not wide angle lenses on a crop. They are normal range zooms with poor zoom ratios.

Why put a FF lens on a crop body? Costs more, weighs more. The EF-S 18-55mm STM is an excellent lens, cheap, light, sharp, and better zoom ratio. And has IS.

Kidding, right? My 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2, 70-200, and 100-400 all work nicely on both formats. What exactly are the EF-s counterparts?

I'll admit that 14mm, 17-40, and 15FE are a tad weird on crop. But they work just fine.

Archibald wrote in post #17496351
Those are not wide angle lenses on a crop. They are normal range zooms with poor zoom ratios.

Why put a FF lens on a crop body? Costs more, weighs more. The EF-S 18-55mm STM is an excellent lens, cheap, light, sharp, and better zoom ratio. And has IS.

Maybe they're considering upgrading to a full frame in the future?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17496423
Kidding, right? My 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2, 70-200, and 100-400 all work nicely on both formats. What exactly are the EF-s counterparts?

I'll admit that 14mm, 17-40, and 15FE are a tad weird on crop. But they work just fine.

True, there are not many lens choices for crop sensor cameras when compared to full frame. But there are quite a few alternatives to the 17-40mm, which the OP was looking at.

Regarding the usefulness of IS on an UWA lens, I think it does depend on shutter speed. I tested my 10-18mm @ 10mm | 1/60s and found no difference. At slower shutter speeds, however, I did. Here is the center of a test chart image at 10mm with a shutter speed of 1/8s:

The 16-35 F4 IS is worth the price over the 17-40 regardless of IS. So much sharper.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17496473
The 16-35 F4 IS is worth the price over the 17-40 regardless of IS. So much sharper.

That has also been my experience.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17496473
The 16-35 F4 IS is worth the price over the 17-40 regardless of IS. So much sharper.

James P wrote in post #17496489
That has also been my experience.

....and mine too.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17496473
The 16-35 F4 IS is worth the price over the 17-40 regardless of IS. So much sharper.

James P wrote in post #17496489
That has also been my experience.

Canon Bob wrote in post #17496502
....and mine too.

I agree as well. To me, the IS is just a bonus for when I'm handholding in low-light. It's come in handy a few times for me when I needed to be below 1/20 shutter speed.

Archibald wrote in post #17496351
Why put a FF lens on a crop body? Costs more, weighs more. The EF-S 18-55mm STM is an excellent lens, cheap, light, sharp, and better zoom ratio. And has IS.

while i don't really agree with the FF on a crop body...because there are many instances where it's fine...but in this instance i don't see the point of a 16-35IS on a crop...a 17-40L has never been a good idea on a crop, and the addition of IS makes it a little better...but there are a bunch of better options for crop

if you are ok with the limited range, the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 would make more sense...or the 17-55f2.8 IS would make more as well

and if you're after a stabilized wide angle the 10-18IS would be a better choice if you want really wide

i'd really rethink the 16-35IS

I will be using this lens for indoor photography, at car shows (engine compartments, etc), just places where my 24-105L is not quite wide enough.

A few posters brought up the point that the 16-35 produces a sharper image. That in itself would be a selling point to justify this lens over the 17-40.

I have stayed with Canon lenses so far but are there third party lenses that would give the same, or better, results as the Canon?

Thanks to all the responders. Your input is appreciated.

any of the UWA would be a better pairing with a 24-105mm than the 16-35IS