Johnny Johnson wrote:
> My medium telephoto (70-200mm f2.8) is an IS. It takes nice, sharp
> pictures but, as Moose said, you may pay a weight penalty for the IS
> (at least with some Canon glass). I shoot it off a tripod most of
> the time so I'm thinking about retiring it and replacing it with the
> f4.0 version without IS at less than half the weight.
>
> Here's a shot taken with it of Balanced Rock in Arches National Park
> - shot at 70mm:
>
> <http://home.alltel.net/jjohnso4/5D%2020060430-0051.jpg>
>
Beauteous!
> ....
> Oh yeah - on the other hand, I'm also thinking about replacing the
> 24-70mm, f2.8 non IS lens with the 24-105mm, f4.0 IS. That's a focal
> length range that I hand-hold a lot and the IS would partially make
> up for my unsteady hands and it weighs considerably less than the 24-70mm.
>
That would certainly work for me. Because of what I shoot and the way I
shoot, I'm almost always look for more, rather than less, DOF, so a
slower lens with more reach and less weight would be a winner for me. My
first EF mount lens was the 24-85/3.5-4.5, and it's quite good. I figure
lenses with brains are more likely to lose them than those without, so
the 24-85 always comes along on trips as backup.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
