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

The 10-18 has image stabilization for $300 total price. The 10-22 fills would fill in the focal length range nicely but without stabilization.

Like others I have trouble handholding at 1/focal length on a tripod. Hand holding the 10-22 at outdoor car shows is fine though. Tripods work to keep it still early in the morning or late in the day.

marchboom wrote in post #17496807
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.

I think this is the classic argument for a full frame body. You certainly aren't shooting engine compartments with a shoe-mounted flash. Disregarding IS for a moment, a 6D/17-40 combination is going to give you better results than a 50D/16-35 f/4 IS. AND you can keep your shutter speed up with the better noise performance of a new, full-frame sensor.

First off, the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is just a better lens than the 17-40mm. I will be upgrading my 17-40mm soon.

As for your specific question, yes IS can be helpful if you don't like shooting with a tripod. IS will help you get many more sharp images at low shutter speeds, provided you aren't trying to stop motion of the subject (for this you NEED shutter speed, not IS)

For a cropper, the 10-18mm might just be the thing, but that said I lived happily with a 17-40mm as my widest for many years even on a "cropper"

marchboom wrote in post #17496807
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.

The Sigma 18-35/1.8 would do well with complimenting your 24-105. I have a Sigma 17-50/2.8 to compliment my 24-105 but the 18-35 wasn't out yet. The 17-50 and the Canon 17-55 both have the valuable stabilization for that type of work. The 10-18 would also be good but personally I would miss the 19-23 range. So if you are not going FF soon, skip the L glass in this range.

I wanted IS for video work so I bought one with it and I found zero improvement. I had already trained my self to be super steady with a 35mm and it wasn't hard at all. Ended up selling the IS lens after a day.

With an ulta wide it's even more easy to be steady.

IMO, if you're going to keep the crop body, get a lens designed for the crop body. The 16-35 might be "sexy", but its biggest performance advantage is going to be on a FF body. A 10-18 will get you IS, a truly wide lens, and at only a modest decrease in IQ compared to the 16-35 F4L.

The 16-35mm will act as a 26-55mm lens on the crop body. If all you need is ~26mm on the wide end, then getting a 6D will get you better IQ, the width you're looking for, and it costs about the same as a 16-35L.

Ignoring the "FF lens on a crop body" question, I'll answer the specific question from the thread subject: It depends.


The 1/focal length rule is a useful pointer that IS is less critical for wide angle lenses, and obviously if you were shooting moving subjects (that required a shutter speed faster than the 1/focal length rule for your lens) then IS is not that relevant - apart from possibly making framing a bit more steady with a super-telephoto.

For me, the killer application for IS on wide angle lenses is the interiors of stately homes and castles; usually dimly lit, and tripods aren't permitted. I think of each stop of IS as being something I can "spend" on getting more depth of field or reduced noise (due to lower ISO).

Imagine for example that you have a shot at 20mm with the following exposure details: 1/25s, f/4, ISO 3200.

With 4 stops of IS, I can put a couple on the aperture and a couple on the ISO, so f/4->f/5.6->f/8, and ISO 3200->1600->800. The shutter speed needs to move by 4 stops, so 1/25->1/13->1/6->0"3->0"6.

Assuming the IS system is good enough to get a sharp shot at 0"6, then f/8 and ISO 800 is going to get you much more DOF (and probably sharper results across the frame), and much less noise.