Some guy wrote: > As I have said before, IS is fine for lazy photographer > and special applications like shooting from a boat or something) > but I use a tripod almost all the time and IS lenses would > add nothing but cost to my outfit
If it adds nothing to *your* outfit, then that's one thing, but I don't think that justifies statements about the usefulness of such lenses to other photographers (or statements about their work ethics, for that matter). But lets get to some practical examples here... He also wrote: > If you want the latest and greatest USM, IS etc, > go out and get it, but it really won't make you a > better photographer. I vehemently disagree. In 3 of my shoots this month I found myself in some sort of vehicle (sometimes car, sometimes a bus-type thingy) driving thru an animal safari. Good luck setting up a tripod (or even getting use out of a monopod) in such a scenario. As for window-mounted rigs for stability you either have to (a) mount and unmount every time you go from one side of the bus to the other, or (b) have all of your equipment in duplicate. (a) will lead to missed shots, and (b) is just stupid <g>. Accordinly, all of my shots were handheld [bracing myself against whatever I could, of course]. Consequently, I was forced to go with my much smaller 70-200 1:2.8 zoom lens most of the time simply because the Pentax 300mm f2.8 lens was just too much to handle for me handheld given its weight [hey, I'm no Paul Stenquist! King of handheld photography <g>]. The point? Well, given such situations which I would call *far* from a "special application" for you usual wildlife photographer... you'd be hardpressed to convince me that IS technology would not have improved (1) the number of keeper shots with reasonable sharpness, and /or (2) improved the sharpness of each given photo. I mean, it's definitely not going to make the photo worse, right? so it can only make it better (or have no effect at all... which is likely at high shutter speeds and unlikely otherwise) for handheld shots. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in my book, more usuable (and hence salable) photos per photo shoot = better photographer. As for shoots when I *do* get to set up a tripod... well, suppose I am hiking thru some state or national park and I come across something worthwhile to shoot (that also happens to have legs). Experience has taught me to take a shot or two FIRST, and THEN think about setting up the tripod (or risk not getting a shot at all). So if IS technology improves the quality of that initial shot (which will occasionally be the only one you get), then again... please remind me of the argument against it? In the past two weeks, I also covered two local events in Atlanta, GA: the St. Patricks Day parade, and a Family Kit flying day. Both where on overcast / rainy days, and the latter was quite early in the morning. In such dynamic environments, I'll again take an IS lens over a tri- / mono- pod anyday. But since I don't have such lenses for my Pentax [and refuse to use film faster than 100 ISO], in the meantime I thank God for fast, light-weight (and third party!) lenses. My .02 + tax, jerome, a not-so-lazy photog ps.. I apologize if all of the above arguments were already given in the recent "USM/IS" threads. I've chosen to skip those so I haven't a clue as to what has been said.