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!

[Waddizzle]

" Umm, I can't do it now, but, when I was younger .... shooting 35mm film I could pretty consistently handhold a 50mm non-IS lens at 1/15 of a second. A 10mm lens with 4 stop IS should be no problem for a one second exposure for someone with steady hands and good technique. 

Why wouldn't the multiple photos be sharp? That's the point of shooting and stacking multiple photos. Stacking photos lets you shoot at a faster shutter speed and emulate one photo taken at a slower shutter speed. "

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

Most people would still need a tripod.  Thank-you, for proving my point.  I must point out that 1/15 of second is an entirely different scenario from your original claim of one full second.

If you cannot do it yourself, why do you insist that "a 10mm lens with 4 stop IS should be no problem for a one exposure"?  In the same breath you admit that you cannot do it, and then turn right around and claim that most anyone should be able to do it.

[ebiggs1]

"If you cannot do it yourself, why do you insist that "a 10mm lens with 4 stop IS should be no problem for a one exposure"?  In the same breath you admit that you cannot do it, and then turn right around and claim that most anyone should be able to do it."

That is because he is a keyboard jock and not a doer.  He is good at reading reviews and such.  Grain of salt!

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

" Umm, I can't do it now, but, when I was younger .... shooting 35mm film I could pretty consistently handhold a 50mm non-IS lens at 1/15 of a second. A 10mm lens with 4 stop IS should be no problem for a one second exposure for someone with steady hands and good technique. 

Why wouldn't the multiple photos be sharp? That's the point of shooting and stacking multiple photos. Stacking photos lets you shoot at a faster shutter speed and emulate one photo taken at a slower shutter speed. "

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

Most people would still need a tripod.  Thank-you, for proving my point.  I must point out that 1/15 of second is an entirely different scenario from your original claim of one full second.

If you cannot do it yourself, why do you insist that "a 10mm lens with 4 stop IS should be no problem for a one exposure"?  In the same breath you admit that you cannot do it, and then turn right around and claim that most anyone should be able to do it.

---

1/15 of a second with a non-IS 50mm lens, is an entirely different scenario that 1 second with 10mm lens with 4 stop image stabilization. In that theoretically 1/15 of a second with a non-IS 50mm lens should be 4 times harder to do than 1 second with 10mm lens with 4 stop image stabilization.

I didn't prove your point at all. 

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. 

The EF-S 10-18 IS STM has image stabilization rated at 4 stops.

No stops 1/16

One stop 1/8

Two stops 1/4

Three stops 1/2

Four stops 1/1 or 1 second expsure. 

Normal rule of thumb for handheld. No tripod or Jedi skills required. 

[TTMartin]

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. 

[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.

[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.