On Tuesday August 10 2004 6:07 pm, James B.Davis 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.
Well, then I guess I'm better at it than you.......what other explanation is there? I have razor sharp images from that lens and hand held. > 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. Well, you put a whole lot more stock in PhotoDo's work than I do. I have razor sharp images that clients pay a good price for......hand held. Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on." * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
