Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens

[Metalliogre]

Good Morning!

I am in search for a nice wide angle low light lens I can use on my 70D. I would prefer something under $500. I am looking to capture photos of the night sky and landscapes at all times of the day/night. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

From one popular camera reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

'Image Stabilization works great. Presuming you know how to shoot a rifle and thus shoot a camera properly at slow speeds, I get perfectly sharp shots most of the time at 1/4 second, usually get pretty sharp shots at 1/2, and even at 1 second get a sharp shot every few frames.

I use a simple technique when I'm on the edge: just shoot several frames, and one is usually much sharper than the others. Use that, and delete the rest.'

From another well respected lens reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

'Under ideal conditions (indoors, standing on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 10mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 to .5 seconds for about 3 stops of assistance. I had enough sharp images at .8 seconds that it would be worth trying for a shot at even this long exposure time if conditions were right (wind, unstable footing and other influences decrease needed exposure times).

Somewhat unusual is that I was able to handhold this lens at its longest focal length at exposure times at least as long as I could handhold it at its widest focal lengths. At 18mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to .8 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second. The keeper rate dropped rapidly at longer exposure times, but .8 seconds is over 4 stops of assistance for me.'

Yep, one second exposures without a tripod. 

---

It depends on what the meaning of the word "sharp" is.

[Waddizzle]

"Again, normal handheld rule of thumb with a lens is 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal lenght x 1.6 (APS-C).

So an average person using proper technique should be able to handhold a 10mm lens on an APS-C camera at 1/16 of a second WITHOUT image stabilization. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion began with your claim that people can easily make a handheld shot using a one second exposure.  All of this noise about 1/FL, is nothing more than an off-topic distraction.  You have changed the subject.  Have a nice day.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "sharp" is.

Bob

---

Bob,

The one reviewer is The Digital Picture, he has a sequence of about 20 shots 100% crops taken at .8 of a second, so you can roll through the sequence and use your own definition of 'sharp'. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

From one popular camera reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

'Image Stabilization works great. Presuming you know how to shoot a rifle and thus shoot a camera properly at slow speeds, I get perfectly sharp shots most of the time at 1/4 second, usually get pretty sharp shots at 1/2, and even at 1 second get a sharp shot every few frames.

I use a simple technique when I'm on the edge: just shoot several frames, and one is usually much sharper than the others. Use that, and delete the rest.'

From another well respected lens reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

'Under ideal conditions (indoors, standing on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 10mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 to .5 seconds for about 3 stops of assistance. I had enough sharp images at .8 seconds that it would be worth trying for a shot at even this long exposure time if conditions were right (wind, unstable footing and other influences decrease needed exposure times).

Somewhat unusual is that I was able to handhold this lens at its longest focal length at exposure times at least as long as I could handhold it at its widest focal lengths. At 18mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to .8 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second. The keeper rate dropped rapidly at longer exposure times, but .8 seconds is over 4 stops of assistance for me.'

Yep, one second exposures without a tripod. 

---

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.

---

All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.

---

All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.

---

I am sorry to hear of your health issues.

What ever gave you the idea that I have never heard of 1/FL before?  I have cited it enough times in these forums that I would have figured that a well read guy like you should have known otherwise.

What ever gave you the idea that an average person can handhold a camera for a full second and get a sharp, clear picture?  An average person will need a tripod for a one second exposure.  End of story.  I think the rule of thumb begins to fall apart smaller and smaller focal lengths, most especially at wide angle focal lengths and close subjects.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.

---

All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.

---

I am sorry to hear of your health issues.

What ever gave you the idea that I have never heard of 1/FL before?  I have cited it enough times in these forums that I would have figured that a well read guy like you should have known otherwise.

What ever gave you the idea that an average person can handhold a camera for a full second and get a sharp, clear picture?  An average person will need a tripod for a one second exposure.  End of story.  I think the rule of thumb begins to fall apart smaller and smaller focal lengths, most especially at wide angle focal lengths and close subjects.

---

Again, sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.