Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Just did not want to leave the impression that IR is useless.
Nor would I! My point is only that it appears to be easy for some folks
to become enamored of IS and forget that it only addresses one of the
two causes of motion blur. There are posts on some forums that are
almost comical, where the user is complaining that the new IS body or
lens doesn't work, but when you look at the posted samples, it is
obviously subject motion that's the problem.
For me, the first step was low noise high iso, as it improves both ends
of the problem. IS is then a second step.
> I love it.
>
> My 70-200/2.8 VR is a blunderbuss, but it is the only way I could
> have gotten a crisp shot of a bridge in Japan on the Inland Sea from
> a boat on a dark, foggy day, hand held of course. And of course,
> consistently sharp shots hand held shots at the equivalent of 300mm.
>
> VR does not make the lens big and heavy it is how fast and well
> corrected it is. I also have an 18-200 VR that is only a little
> bigger and heavier than most kit lenses, at least until it is extended.
>
I wouldn't have gotten that shot your way for the simple reason I
wouldn't be carrying the blunderbuss, even if I owned one. I learned
that the hard way with the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8. Neither it nor the
lighter Tokina one have ever gone on a real trip with me, just
photographic day trips. :-)
I'd have shot at about f5, iso 1600 and 3200 and likely got a sharp shot
as well, but who knows?
The Can*n EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is on my wish list, small,
light and excellent IS. But it's not cheap and there are that scanner
and printer I want too, not to mention all the mundane needs of
everyday, non-photographic life....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|