Wide angle IS lens?

[stephen_keilers]

<p>Hello,<br>

I'll be going on an Alaskan Cruise in a few months and i need some advice on purchasing/renting a wide-angle lens. I'll be taking pics from the ship, so i think i would need a lens with image stabalization. I have the 100-400mm now I would like a stout wide angle to go with it. I fancy the 10/22mm, but it doesn't come with IS...any advise would be apprecieated.<br>

I'll be shooting primarily with a 20D.<br>

Thanks for your reply.</p>

 

[rainer_t]

<p>The widest coverage that you actually can get with IS is the 24-105 IS on a fullframe camera.<br>

On crop 1.6, there is nothing wider than the 17/18-xxx IS lenses (which give you 28mm fullframe equivalent).</p>

[andreasb]

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it works great. The Canon 10-22mm is a faster lens and I'm sure you will like it just as much although I can not speak from experience since I have not tried it.<br /><br />As for image stabilizing, it is much more critical for longer lenses than it is for shorter ones. It is much harder to get a crisp photo with a 500mm lens than a 50mm lens, hand held, and that is where IS is most important. For my purposes, I have never felt I needed it for anything shorter than 70 or 80mm. I have never had problems with hand holding my 10-20mm lens and I doubt very much that I would even notice the difference if I had one with IS. The only issue I could foresee is in low light where increasing you ISO would probably overcome the need for IS also.<br /><br />Remember the 1/focal length rule for hand holding. For a 500mm lens, you need at least 1/500sec (or faster) for a non-blurry photo. For the 10-22mm, it would be 1/10 to 1/22sec using this formula, however, without IS I would guess 1/30sec would be the lower limit if you have steady hands. This will cover most of the conceivable photo opportunities I can imagine on a trip like yours since I would guess you would be shooting during daylight hours most of the time. I am sure it would even be fine on a cloudy day.<br /><br />Have a great trip!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>10-22 is an excellent lens. You are most likely ok without IS on such a wide angle lens, just keep your shutter speed fast enough. Maybe the 17-55 2.8 is would be a better option. Not as wide but still pretty wide.</p>

[jc_stark_arts]

<p>shooting in normal daylight at f/8 with the 10-22 you should get near a 500th of a second. that should be sharp.<br>

JC</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Some people like to say that you wouldn't need IS on a wide angle lens, but I would differ with them on this - whatever shutter speed you can hand hold without IS, you can lengthen the exposure with IS. So if you feel good about hand holding a 17mm shot at 1/25 without IS, you might well be able to go a couple stops slower with it. (Keep in mind that it won't help if the subject is moving much.)</p>

<p>If I were shooting a cropped sensor camera like you do I'd take a good look at the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. Not only does it have IS, but it goes reasonably wide on crop at 17mm (though not as wide, obviously, as the 10-22), produces excellent image quality and also provides f/2.8.</p>

<p>The EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is a fine lens with IS and it works well on cropped sensor bodies, but 24mm is not really particularly wide on them, giving about the same angle of view as a 38mm lens on a full-frame body.</p>

<p>As to whether the 17-55 covers the FL lengths you need, only you can answer that one! I can think of some other lenses that some might use to augment the 100-400 and 17-55mm combination. If I were doing this I might think about combining the 24-105 with these lenses, though combining the 24-105 with the 10-22 and the 100-400 would be an interesting option as well. You could also consider the inexpensive but quite good 85mm f/1.8 lens as an "in between" lens that also would be useful in some situations where the zooms might not work so well. There are other options as well...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>One problem with IS on wide lenses is that it may be less effective. If you had a 15mm lens and could handhold it at 1/15s with no IS, 3 stops of IS would take you down to about 1/2s. Now 1/2s might be outside the stabilization bandwidth of the IS system. We know that IS slowly drifts during long exposures (which is why you have to turn it off when the lens is on a tripod and you're shooting with long exposures). It's possible that the drift in 1/2s would be noticable and enough to lower sharpness.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>"One problem with IS on wide lenses is that it may be less effective. If you had a 15mm lens and could handhold it at 1/15s with no IS, 3 stops of IS would take you down to about 1/2s. Now 1/2s might be outside the stabilization bandwidth of the IS system. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends what you use IS for. Some may use it to shoot at lower and lower shutter speeds. I tend to use it to increase sharpness at or near what might be considered regular shooting speeds. For this reason I wish Canon would bite the bullet and offer an in body IS solution. It doesn't mean they have to drop IS from their premium lenses. But it is frustrating not having my 100 macro, 50 macro, 35 f2 and 10-22 unstabilised while looking longingly over the fence at Pentax, Sony and all the rest.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Geoff, photographers shot for many decades (and some still continue to shoot) without image stabilized lenses, and obtained stellar results. This is because they relied more on their technique than on their gear. Has modern gear made us lazier photographers? <em>You bet. </em>Has it made us better photographers? <em>Absolutely not.</em> And it likely has not even improved the quality of our images.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As Bob suggests you probably don't need IS on a wide angle lens - especially with a DSLR where you should be OK at higher ISOs. </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Whenever this issue comes up there are the inevitable responses essentially telling me that anything that Canon doesn't make I don't need. Perhaps it would be safer to assume that each photographer is probably the best judge of what they do or don't need/want.<br>

As someone who shoots some travel stuff, prefers to work without a tripod and is often simultaneously trying to maximise depth of field, minimise ISO and maintain sharpness, all I can say is IS is useful.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Geoff,</p>

<p>This does rather assume that an in body SR system would make a noticeable difference when shutter speeds are "normal". It may not, so it may not be something that is particularly worthwhile. I don't know the answer to this. If you do, do let us know. But I do agree with you that Canon should have an SR-containing body.</p>

[ajb2222]

<p>When I cruised Alaska I took only two lenses.<br>

1) Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (Non-IS)<br>

2) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM<br>

I never found I needed a wider angle very much. Maybe once or twice.<br>

I wish I would have had a better lens then the 18-55 but I got some pretty good shots with it.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The question of whether IS <em>can</em> provide some benefits on wide angle lenses is different from the question of whether <em>you</em> need it.</p>

<p>In my experience it can provide valuable benefits on full frame cameras at 24mm focal lengths, suggesting that it might also provide benefits on cropped sensor bodies at, say, 15mm-16mm. In a low light wide angle shot where you must shoot hand held and the subject motion is not the issues, the extra couple of stops that you gain may well make a difference, especially if you are using a zoom lens with its limited large aperture.</p>

<p>In addition, when you "calculate" the lowest usable shutter speed for a cropped sensor camera, keep in mind that you need to take the crop factor into account - the angle of view is the issue here. (And I do understand that the "calculation" is only a general rule of thumb - everyong is different.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[railphotog]

<p>I've been on two cruises to Alaska, and I suggest you do not need an IS lens. The ships were good and solid when we went, they don't go where it will be rough - too hard on the customers! I never took a DSLR on either trip, preferred to keep in simple with a smaller superzoom camera. We went near the end of June-first of July, and the days are really long in the upper latitudes during this time, the sun didn't set until 10PM or later. So there should be plenty of light for selecting higher shutter speeds to overcome camera shake.<br>

Have a good trip!</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Of course the 17-55/2.8 is the widest IS that I know of. but for the price of renting it, you could probably purchase a used 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS. as inferior (both in speed and optics) as the 18-55 is, it's also great for the price, and if a wave drenches it... eh, so what! I would expect that explaining how it isn't your fault to the rental shop ain't gonna go over so well!</p>

<p>Of course, I always take my favorite camera if I'm anywhere unique and interesting. And last time I was on a cruise, they let us go out on speedboats, and sea-dos, so while the BIG boat is relatively smooth, getting out on a runabout (while admittedly less attractive off of a glacier, then a tropical island) should be expected to be <em>kind </em> of rough.</p>