# wide angle lens with IS



## berrywoodson (Mar 17, 2012)

Why hasn't Canon made a wide angle lens with IS?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2012)

Did you miss the announcement of the new 24mm and 28mm primes with IS? How about the 24-105mm IS? Or for APS-C there are at least 5 zooms with IS that extend into the wide angle region.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you miss the announcement of the new 24mm and 28mm primes with IS? How about the 24-105mm IS? Or for APS-C there are at least 5 zooms with IS that extend into the wide angle region.



Perhaps he meant to ask about ultrawide not wide?


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 17, 2012)

^^^What he said. 

By the way Neuro, have you looked at the MTF charts for the 24mm and 28mm? I can't read those things but I'm pretty sure I remember you being able to decode them. Any thoughts?


----------



## Flake (Mar 17, 2012)

berrywoodson said:


> Why hasn't Canon made a wide angle lens with IS?



For several reasons:

The 17 - 40mm f/4 L is an old design, the 16 - 35mm f/2.8 L II is a large optic design which would be even larger if IS were added. Then there's the issue of potentially compromised image quality which seems to be an issue at shorter focal lengths, the Nikon16 - 35mm f/4 VR has not had fantastic reviews and is seen as a bit of a let down when compared to the 12 - 24mm f/2.8.

Of course there's the issue of reciprocals the slowest speed at 17mm would be 1/15th Sec, a four stop IS would have to be able to cope with a 1 second exposure, no mean feat!

This of course applies to Canons FF L lenses, but for the EF-s lenses the same is not true, there are plenty of 17mm and less lenses which do have IS the 15 - 85mm being the shortest.

So for FF Size weight, cost, image quality, necessity, and technical issues all add up to an unlikely addition for the L grade lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2012)

EF-s lenses do have IS in the newer ones, but remember that the 1.6 crop factor plays into the desision to add it, plus the fact that they are entry level bodies and it does help someone with his first DSLR to have a IS lens. Then, as more experience is gained, it is not such a big deal.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 17, 2012)

Sometimes IS in lenses can just be invaluable. Although yes, on the larger lenses with f/2.8, adding IS can add ridiculously to the cost because of the amount of glass that needs moving around (look at the 70-200L range, the IS versions are double the price of the non-IS (although there's also weather sealing)).
But sometimes it's not so necessary, I just shot a roll of iso400 b+w film on my mum's 40 year old spotmatic, with my 50mm f/1.4 Takumar, half the shots were at 1/8s and 1/15s, all handheld, they didn't turn out too badly. Either I got lucky (i wouldn't call myself the most stable person, especially after 10 coffees in a normal day), or I haven't scanned them high enough dpi to see the shake.

There's definitely occasions where IS on a landscape are useful, like this shot from the other morning (views like this are the only good thing about having to leave for work before sunrise).
7D, EFs 15-85 IS @ 18mm, ISO400, 1/3s, handheld because I had climbed up a retaining wall around the back of the garden shed, was hard enough to stop myself falling 3m, no way I was getting a tripod up there...


----------



## SPG (Mar 18, 2012)

berrywoodson said:


> Why hasn't Canon made a wide angle lens with IS?


I would guess that a big part of the reason is that wide lenses suffer from a lot less visible shake than a telephoto lens does.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 18, 2012)

I spose it's also the reason that most people, I assume, are using tripods with their wide angle lenses - thus eliminating the need and use for IS in L primes. But I am interested in the new 24mm and 28mm lenses coming out with IS. Why canon decided it was a good idea to put IS in those two wide angle lenses I don't know nor can I find a logic reason which makes much sense to me. Should've put IS on the new 24-70 2.8 mkII. It certainly would have justified the price....for me at least


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 18, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Why canon decided it was a good idea to put IS in those two wide angle lenses I don't know nor can I find a logic reason which makes much sense to me.



I'm guessing video.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 18, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > Why canon decided it was a good idea to put IS in those two wide angle lenses I don't know nor can I find a logic reason which makes much sense to me.
> ...


that possibility had slipped my mind. I wish they'd make a 17-40 2.8L. Yeah most people might not need the extra stop since they'd be shooting landscape but it's nice to know it's there when you might need it - e.g walking down the beach with your family in the fading light of the sunset. Just a thought...


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2012)

I definitely value IS on my longer lenses and am happy to pay the premium. This is re-payed in the increased number of keepers IS delivers for me.

It was only mildly disappointing that the new 24-70 f/2.8II was announced without IS. But it's no big deal. Canon need to bring lenses to market at a palatable price. If adding IS to the new 24-70 meant the shipping price was closer to $3000 then I'm glad it was omitted. Look to the price difference between the IS and non IS 70-200 lenses. To me it's preferable to get the optics as good as possible for the price rather than compromise with lesser IQ but with IS. It's a trade-off. Add to that the greatly reduced day to day need for IS the wider you get.

In the fullness of time I have little doubt that current IS technology and lens optics will evolve to a point where it is economically viable for every lens produced to ship with IS to die for. We might see it on the iPhone-6!

Paul Wright


----------



## moreorless (Mar 19, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I* spose it's also the reason that most people, I assume, are using tripods with their wide angle lenses * - thus eliminating the need and use for IS in L primes. But I am interested in the new 24mm and 28mm lenses coming out with IS. *Why canon decided it was a good idea to put IS in those two wide angle lenses I don't know nor can I find a logic reason which makes much sense to me.* Should've put IS on the new 24-70 2.8 mkII. It certainly would have justified the price....for me at least



Depends on the users I'd say, Canon probabley believe users who value the absolute best optical performance are going to use tripods or use the lenses wide open rather than have IS. I think you have a signifcant market of users who don't like to use tripods stopped down but want superior boarder performance to either the 17-40mm or the 24-105mm stopped down(going by the MTF's anyway) without having to carry alot of extra weight.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 19, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > scottsdaleriots said:
> ...



And they called it: "16-35"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I wish they'd make a 17-40 2.8L. Yeah most people might not need the extra stop since they'd be shooting landscape but it's nice to know it's there when you might need it - e.g walking down the beach with your family in the fading light of the sunset. Just a thought...



LOL. Indeed - they made not one, but two versions of the 16-35mm f/2.8L, and before that was the 17-35mm f/2.8L. 

Stopped down to f/8-f/11, the 16-35mm II isn't really much better than the 17-40/4, but the flexibility of an extra stop when needed is why I opted for the 16-35mm II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > I wish they'd make a 17-40 2.8L. Yeah most people might not need the extra stop since they'd be shooting landscape but it's nice to know it's there when you might need it - e.g walking down the beach with your family in the fading light of the sunset. Just a thought...
> ...


it can do so much more than shoot landscapes, however if you were only ever going to shoot landscapes at narrow aperture then may as well save some cash and get the 17-40 but personally i love the 16-35 II


----------



## gtog (Mar 20, 2012)

berrywoodson said:


> Why hasn't Canon made a wide angle lens with IS?



Regarding IS and wide angle lenses, let's take a step back and remember what the problem is that IS is a solution to. Unwanted camera/lens shake/movement during exposure causes the light from a given point to be displaced across the sensor (or film) resulting in streaks or blur in the recorded image. The apparent displacement for a given amount of shake/movement is greater with longer focal lengths. Consider an object that is 1 degree of the FOV. That object will not only occupy a much larger portion of the sensor with a lens that will record a 10 degree FOV, but any unwanted motion will also be larger and more objectionable than with a wide angle lens with a 100 degree FOV and the same object.

The "classic" solutions to this problem are normally: a) to steady the camera/lens with a tripod, monopod, bean bag, gyroscopic device, etc.; b) use a faster shutter speed so that the extent of the motion recorded during exposure will be less objectionable.

In 1976 Canon patented Image Stabilization and introduced the first interchangeable SLR lens to use it in September 1995, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, followed in March 1997 with the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM and EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM in February 1998. The latter being the first EF lens with IS in the wide angle range. The first IS version only provided about 2 stops of improvement and had issues when on a tripod or panning with a subject. Later IS versions have improved substantially.

Canon's IS works by shifting a lens group to compensate for camera/lens shake/movement and reduce any image displacement at the sensor that would have resulted. This benefits focusing and composition as well as the recorded image.

The current Canon lenses with wide angle coverage and IS are:
EF zooms: EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (2/1998), EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (6/2004), and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (10/2005)
EF-S zooms: All the current "standard" zooms have IS with wide coverage starting in the 15-18mm (24-29 FFE) range.
The only EF-S prime is the 60mm f/2.8 USM macro which lacks IS.
The shortest EF prime with IS is the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM with Hybrid IS (10/2009) which compensates for both angular and shift shake.
Currently the shortest EF prime with "regular" IS is the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM (4/2008).

Canon has announced EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lenses expected to be available in June. They seem to be anomalous with respect to the rest of Canon's line, and not just for price-point and cost/benefit reasons. With the reduced impact of camera/lens shake with wide angle lenses, the IS benefits would not seem very compelling for shooting stills. As others have mentioned, their IS would be more compelling for video shooters because not only would each frame be improved (intra-frame shake), but there would be less apparent shake between frames (inter-frame shake) which would provide a smoother video. A contrarian would, of course, observe that none of Canon's EF mount cine lenses (2 zoom and 24, 50 and 85mm primes) have IS. Of course at the cine lens price points, Canon may figure users would have other apparatus to stabilize the camera/lens? Maybe the announced 24 and 28mm with IS are targeted at amateur and small under-capitalized production company videographers? It will be interesting to see how well the IS in these new lenses handles panning with moving video subjects (eg kids), which are not always uni-directional.

In short, Canon has had "Wide IS" for the past 14 years, but not extensively and only in zooms (which also had coverage into the telephoto range), probably due to minimal benefit to still photographers. However, with the popular advent of DSLR video, we can expect to see more "Wide IS", including primes.

Thanks for your kindness in reading such a long post.
G


----------



## bigblue1ca (Mar 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> it can do so much more than shoot landscapes, however if you were only ever going to shoot landscapes at narrow aperture then may as well save some cash and get the 17-40 but personally i love the 16-35 II



Agree completely.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > Why canon decided it was a good idea to put IS in those two wide angle lenses I don't know nor can I find a logic reason which makes much sense to me.
> ...


 
Yes, Chuck Westfall and others said that these are lenses that take video users into account. Most new Canon lenses are going to be ore video friendly.


----------

