Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[scyrene]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

*Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean. That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred. I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not, just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

*Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean.

Yes, I believe something like this is occurring.

That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred.

This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do. To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective.

I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not,

I do this also, not just for sharpness but also if taking people shots I will get more pleasing expression one frame than the other two.

just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).

I generally like to set my shutter speed to 1/100-1/125 in most cases as events is my specialty. This makes 85mm about as high as I will go without image stabilization (wouldn't regularly use the 135L for this reason). Everything I own higher than 85mm is image stabilized, but almost all of my lenses are non-stabilized at 85mm and under. I do like to keep the 35mm f/2 IS, though, as its light weight, flexible focal length, small size and IS makes it perfect for panning shots. It is also a good city lens, regardless of IS, and I personally feel that at any aperture narrower than f/2 the 35 IS has better bokeh than the 35L.

85L generally does not give camera shake problems if you set shutter speed to 1/125, at least this seems to be the case. What you will get if you are shooting at f/1.2 though is blur due to moving focal plane. The depth of field is so thin that leaning the camera just a tiny bit forward or back before shooting can result in blur through missed focus. It is really a challenging lens to use, though I like the results both it and the 50L give best out of all the the Canon lenses - they seem to be lenses you use when you want to get an incredible shot, but have the time to potentially miss a couple of shots in obtaining it.

 

[scyrene]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do. To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective.

Oh absolutely. I've got the odd clean shot at 1/15 with my 500mm lens But I suspect the super-telephoto lenses contain the best IS systems so far.

just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).

I generally like to set my shutter speed to 1/100-1/125 in most cases as events is my specialty. This makes 85mm about as high as I will go without image stabilization (wouldn't regularly use the 135L for this reason). Everything I own higher than 85mm is image stabilized, but almost all of my lenses are non-stabilized at 85mm and under. I do like to keep the 35mm f/2 IS, though, as its light weight, flexible focal length, small size and IS makes it perfect for panning shots. It is also a good city lens, regardless of IS, and I personally feel that at any aperture narrower than f/2 the 35 IS has better bokeh than the 35L.

85L generally does not give camera shake problems if you set shutter speed to 1/125, at least this seems to be the case. What you will get if you are shooting at f/1.2 though is blur due to moving focal plane. The depth of field is so thin that leaning the camera just a tiny bit forward or back before shooting can result in blur through missed focus. It is really a challenging lens to use, though I like the results both it and the 50L give best out of all the the Canon lenses.

I agree, I would say the 85L needs 1/100-1/200 to be certain. And it's a big heavy lump, so maybe that's working against stability (though some say weight helps). It's not *my* favourite, but I don't do all that much portrait work. It's a great lens anyhow

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

The 85L puts out some of the most beautiful pictures of any lens I've seen.

For indoor events, though, if I am going to use two primes it will generally be 24L II and 50L, as it is rare I have enough space to use 85mm focal length. In less chaotic situations with more working room the 85L is the go-to lens, however. Although I am sure there will be arguments for the pricey 200mm f/2L IS instead

This 16-35 range is great for events too, though again using primarily indoors I need f/2.8 for cleaner shots in low light, so this particular 16-35 f/4 IS lens would not be for me. Landscape photogs will have a blast with it though.

 

[wickidwombat]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....

Ironic you state I need to work on my abilities when you are attempting to argue in favor of Image Stabilization making a big difference in an ultrawide angle lens. Image stabilization helps a photographer's camera shake, recall