« on: May 07, 2014, 11:44:00 PM »
16-35 would be a landscape/architecture lens for many. If I would be shooting any serious such shots I would certainly use a tripod with f11. IS would not be useful.
If I am indoors shooting people at a party or such with available light I would need wider f stop to freeze the subject motion. IS would not be useful.
Unlike the 24-70 where I want IS, I am not sure how important IS is to such a wide lens.
I know there are loop holes in my thinking process here but I would prefer an updated lens with 2.8 aperture and IS. 2.8 will help me freeze the subject motion and I would have the mental peace that if I am ever stuck somewhere without a tripod I could take a slow shutter shot.
IS can be nice for a wide lens. Sometimes you want to enjoy as much as photograph yet still want to take as serious and high quality shot as you can and IS could mean two stops plus lower ISO for better detail and more DR without having to do the tripod dance. Sometimes you are with people and constant tripod use bogs things down and then well they get annoyed and you are no longer with people hah. IS could help that a bit. Sometimes the light is changing fast and being able to quickly hand hold a bunch of shots lets you capture a whole bunch of wild stuff while tripod means you maybe miss half the shots if not more. Sometimes you are on the more city part of a trip and dragging a tripod around is a drag or not allowed and IS is good for those times.
That would be a great place to have IS.