--- Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:00 PM 05/02/2001, you wrote:
> >Now, obviously the IS lens is better,
>
> Not <obviously>. The IS lens is better if you need
> IS. Otherwise it's an
> expensive option.
True in general, but under the conditions the original
poster and I have given (small aperture, polarizer, no
tripod, 'slow' film, landscape pictures) you are VERY
likely to benefit from IS. For instance on a SUNNY day
with ISO 100 ('slow' film), aperture of 16 (with
landscape you often want big DOF), and a polarizer you
end up with a shutter speed of 1/100*4=1/25sec. Even
at the short end of the lens this is to slow to get
the max. out of the lens. If you use even slower film
or if it is not sunny it becomes even worse. So IMHO
there is a NEED for IS under the given conditions.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
