--- "James B.Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:22:38 -0400, Fred Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
> >> It might be sharper on a tripod, but it won't be sharper handheld.
> I
> >> don't like tripods :-) Not to mention it's zoom range is not so
> great
> >> and it's much heavier.
> >
> >Jim, I'd be pleased to send you a few shots I've taken with my
> 24-70L with NO
> >tripod nor monopod!! It hand holds VERY well, unlike the Sigma.
>
> My point was only that the 24-70L, while being a sharp lens, if used
> handheld, that sharpness is negated. Any lens handheld loses alot of
> all that extra cost and quality handheld. I'll go as far as saying
> it's a waste of money of you are going to handhold such a lens.
>
> Hey, I'm a handholder, I know what kind of results can be had doing
> it. I know you 'can' get a nice image. But the differences between
> PhotoDo's 3.6 and 3.9 disappear.
>
Yuo know, I also mostly shoot handheld, and the difference between
28-70L and others (including 28-135, that wasn't bad at all on its own)
is still amazing on prints. Obviously, tripod makes the difference but
that is relevant regardless of lens type. Handholding/shutter speed
rules are applicable of course at the same degree, but at any given
similar conditions, I found 28-70L just threw away any other lens I
used.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
