I need a lens that will give me in focus group shots sometimes several people deep, f/2.8 won't cut it for that anyway.
So...if you are going to be stopped down anyway, you may as well have IS than not....
This is again where I'd question the usefullness of IS on a fast wide optic. What shutter speed does IS allow that wouldn't be handholdable already with a wide zoom yet would still eliminate all motion induced blur in the scene? 1/10? I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to handhold that at 17mm already. Unless people are really steady I don't want to do many things at 1/10 anyway.
This is again where I'd question the usefullness of IS on a fast wide optic. What shutter speed does IS allow that wouldn't be handholdable already with a wide zoom yet would still eliminate all motion induced blur in the scene? 1/10? I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to handhold that at 17mm already. Unless people are really steady I don't want to do many things at 1/10 anyway.
How about 1 second?
Okay, not a great pic but it was shot handheld with a 17-85mm EF-S IS with a shutter speed of 1s (click pic for exif).
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
But the fact is that your subjects had to be stationary for a whole second of time. If they were moving then IS wouldn't have helped one bit.
Yes, that's true. But if I didn't have IS I couldn't have gotten a shot at all. I didn't have my tripod with me that trip so I would have been out of luck without IS. A shot is better than no shot IMHO.
At any rate let's think about that shot without IS. That was shot at ISO 3200, f/4.0, 1 sec, and 17mm. I don't know any 17mm lenses that have an aperture of better than 2.8. That's one stop. So for this pic with a non IS f/2.8 lens you'd have ISO 3200, f/2.8, at 1/2 sec. You wouldn't be able to stop action OR get a clean shot without IS. So what if there was a lens that went down another 2 stops on top of that to f/1.4? You'd get to 1/8 sec at f/1.4 and you still couldn't handhold it and you'd still have a motion blur issue (albeit not as much of one). Plus your depth would likely be so small that you may not be able to get the shot you want - depending on the shot of course.
The math doesn't lie. IS is quite useful even at this focal length.
I think this shot shows precisely why IS is e
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Yes, that's true. But if I didn't have IS I couldn't have gotten a shot at all. I didn't have my tripod with me that trip so I would have been out of luck without IS. A shot is better than no shot IMHO.
At any rate let's think about that shot without IS. That was shot at ISO 3200, f/4.0, 1 sec, and 17mm. I don't know any 17mm lenses that have an aperture of better than 2.8. That's one stop. So for this pic with a non IS f/2.8 lens you'd have ISO 3200, f/2.8, at 1/2 sec. You wouldn't be able to stop action OR get a clean shot without IS. So what if there was a lens that went down another 2 stops on top of that to f/1.4? You'd get to 1/8 sec at f/1.4 and you still couldn't handhold it and you'd still have a motion blur issue (albeit not as much of one). Plus your depth would likely be so small that you may not be able to get the shot you want - depending on the shot of course.
The math doesn't lie. IS is quite useful even at this focal length.
I think this shot shows precisely why IS is e
I agree that you probably couldn't get a clean shot even with a 1.4 lens in that situation without IS. I wouldn't agree about stopping action though. My original point though was about people settling on a lower quality lens that must be stopped down and thus IS is almost mandatory vs. a higher quality lens without IS but is actually sharp wide open.
Actually I'd say if you are steady enough with IS at 1 entire second to make that shot then with a 1/4 second exposure and no IS in the equation you could make the shot also. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree about the DOF issue but I think it's less critical at the 17mm focal length.
My original point though was about people settling on a lower quality lens that must be stopped down and thus IS is almost mandatory vs. a higher quality lens without IS but is actually sharp wide open.
A lesser lens is better than no lens and if that lesser quality lens has IS, all the better.
Actually I'd say if you are steady enough with IS at 1 entire second to make that shot then with a 1/4 second exposure and no IS in the equation you could make the shot also. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree about the DOF issue but I think it's less critical at the 17mm focal length.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really that steady of a shooter yet I took that shot without much problem. Honestly I haven't tried it out. Maybe you're right, maybe not. The typical handhold speed that I've heard is 1/focal length in seconds. So at 17mm a reasonable handholding speed would be 1/15 sec. So going off of that I wouldn't say that you could get to 1/4 sec without IS on a 17mm lens. But again, I haven't tried it.
And DOF is critical depending on the shot.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Is there any reason to believe the price for this lens will stay that high indefinitely? It seems that all the EF-S lenses have been introduced fairly high in price and then come down significantly. The EF-S 17-85 IS for example.. didn't that start at like $800? B&H will sell me one today for just a touch over $500! A nearly 40% drop in price after what, a year? Not bad in the long run.
Would this lens be far more attractive at ~60% of the price, around the ~$700?
Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $700-800 for this lens. Hopefully it will come down, because there's no way I will pay $1100 for it. Now if is super sharp wide open (read: sharpest lens in non-L category) and really good build and gets a 10 on FM, then maybe I will consider it.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really that steady of a shooter yet I took that shot without much problem. Honestly I haven't tried it out. Maybe you're right, maybe not. The typical handhold speed that I've heard is 1/focal length in seconds. So at 17mm a reasonable handholding speed would be 1/15 sec. So going off of that I wouldn't say that you could get to 1/4 sec without IS on a 17mm lens. But again, I haven't tried it.
1. Can you duplicate that (1 second exposure at 17mm) even half the time? If so then I'd say you are a steady shooter. If not then it was a poor point to make.
I could point out that I can handhold my 17mm at 1/10 and get a tack sharp image without IS or VR. The fact is that I can't do it every single time though. It makes one wonder if we don't want what is unreasonable and generally not even useful from Canon and Nikon. I mean what do we need to expose at 1/10, f/2.8, at 3200ISO, without flash that is even readily discernable to the human eye. At 1 second even the slightest movement will be seen. Does it even matter for that type of shot?
2. The focal length rule is sort of a general guideline and not really a rule. Everyone is different. I find that I can always beat the "rule" with wider lenses. I find that I need extra shutter speed at longer focal lengths.
Comments
just for 'sharpness', but many times for DOF.
I need a lens that will give me in focus group shots sometimes several people deep, f/2.8 won't cut it for that anyway.
So...if you are going to be stopped down anyway, you may as well have IS than not....
How about 1 second?
Okay, not a great pic but it was shot handheld with a 17-85mm EF-S IS with a shutter speed of 1s (click pic for exif).
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
But the fact is that your subjects had to be stationary for a whole second of time. If they were moving then IS wouldn't have helped one bit.
Yes, that's true. But if I didn't have IS I couldn't have gotten a shot at all. I didn't have my tripod with me that trip so I would have been out of luck without IS. A shot is better than no shot IMHO.
At any rate let's think about that shot without IS. That was shot at ISO 3200, f/4.0, 1 sec, and 17mm. I don't know any 17mm lenses that have an aperture of better than 2.8. That's one stop. So for this pic with a non IS f/2.8 lens you'd have ISO 3200, f/2.8, at 1/2 sec. You wouldn't be able to stop action OR get a clean shot without IS. So what if there was a lens that went down another 2 stops on top of that to f/1.4? You'd get to 1/8 sec at f/1.4 and you still couldn't handhold it and you'd still have a motion blur issue (albeit not as much of one). Plus your depth would likely be so small that you may not be able to get the shot you want - depending on the shot of course.
The math doesn't lie. IS is quite useful even at this focal length.
I think this shot shows precisely why IS is e
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Actually I'd say if you are steady enough with IS at 1 entire second to make that shot then with a 1/4 second exposure and no IS in the equation you could make the shot also. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree about the DOF issue but I think it's less critical at the 17mm focal length.
That depends on the action I suppose. 1/8 sec isn't exactly speedy.
A lesser lens is better than no lens and if that lesser quality lens has IS, all the better.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really that steady of a shooter yet I took that shot without much problem. Honestly I haven't tried it out. Maybe you're right, maybe not. The typical handhold speed that I've heard is 1/focal length in seconds. So at 17mm a reasonable handholding speed would be 1/15 sec. So going off of that I wouldn't say that you could get to 1/4 sec without IS on a 17mm lens. But again, I haven't tried it.
And DOF is critical depending on the shot.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $700-800 for this lens. Hopefully it will come down, because there's no way I will pay $1100 for it. Now if is super sharp wide open (read: sharpest lens in non-L category) and really good build and gets a 10 on FM, then maybe I will consider it.
http://redbull.smugmug.com
"Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D
Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
I could point out that I can handhold my 17mm at 1/10 and get a tack sharp image without IS or VR. The fact is that I can't do it every single time though. It makes one wonder if we don't want what is unreasonable and generally not even useful from Canon and Nikon. I mean what do we need to expose at 1/10, f/2.8, at 3200ISO, without flash that is even readily discernable to the human eye. At 1 second even the slightest movement will be seen. Does it even matter for that type of shot?
2. The focal length rule is sort of a general guideline and not really a rule. Everyone is different. I find that I can always beat the "rule" with wider lenses. I find that I need extra shutter speed at longer focal lengths. At 17mm and 2.8 you've got alot more DOF than you would have say at 50mm. I'm pointing out that one of the advantages of 17mm is increased DOF at 2.8.