Walter Tani wrote:
>Sorry, Moose, missed your post about the 17-35; and even if I hadn't missed
>......<big snip>
>http://photobucket.com/albums/v722/wtani/ Click on 'turtles' near the top
>to see some shots of Hawaiian turtles sunning themselves and playing with
>tourists at a popular beach called Laniakea, on the North Shore of Oahu,
>Hawaii. All of the turtle shots were done with the 70-200 as well.
>
>
I'll see your turtles and raise you an island and a clammer
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Tam28-300/>. I have no doubt that
the 70-200L IS is a great lens. I know that I would not have carried it
up a couple of miles of steep trail and hand held it in the wind on top
of a cliff for the island shot. It's more likely I might have had it
along for the clammer, but by no means certain it would have made the
3,000+ mile journey, which was not primarily for photography anyway, at
all.
The immediate point is that I'm getting the results I want, better than
I expected, and longer than the 70-200, with a much smaller, lighter and
cheaper lens. And I'm getting shots I would otherwise miss, which is
more important to me than a small difference in edge sharpness when
pixel peeping that can't be seen in any print size I can make. It's all
about individual tastes and needs.
The larger point, which your comments at least partially support, was in
reply to a post about how much it cost to get a decent set of lenses for
EOS DSLRs. I simply argued that ponying up for a set of L lenses wasn't
going to be a geat deal better for most real world print sizes and
purposes than some cheaper alternatives.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|