As the *ORIGINAL* poster, let me jump in here before this starts some sort
of IS/non-IS feud! =) First of all, nearly every comment I have received so
far has been helpful. Even as a novice, I enjoy hearing opinions from both
sides and I think that it's exhibited well here (minus a few rude/offensive
comments =). Obviously not everyone is going to have the same shooting
style and therefore the same equipment preferences. This benefits me
because I'm able to weigh all the different viewpoints before making my
decision. I'm buying a whole new system here and while it was easy to
decide on the Elan 7 body, it has not been easy deciding on which first lens
would be best. I'm basically willing to spend up to $500 on a lens
initially and hopefully purchase more in the near future. First, I thought
a mid-range zoom would be the best answer, but after talking privately to
other VERY helpful people on the list, I'm starting to think that a single
prime (50/1.4 specifically) would make a good initial lens to have. Soon,
I'd plan to supplement that with a 100/2 and move on from there. I'd like
to have the best looking pictures possible and I know that, while my
photography skills can improve, I may be stuck with this lens for a while
and I don't want to be disappointed in the long run.
So, anyway, one thing I've loved about this list is that's it's all
photo...all the time. There's hardly ever any bickering and that's great!!!
I hope it can stay that way because I'm able to take so much away from each
message. Thanks to everyone who's helped me out so far!
Doug
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Meier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Re: Amateur Lens Advice
>
>
>
> --- Karen Nakamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> >
> > True, but if you're taking landscapes without a
> > tripod, well..... to be
> > blunt, you're an idiot.
>
> Well, first of all I said that *I* always use a
> tripod. But there are lots of people who don't want or
> even can't bring a tripod. The original poster seems
> to have only one camera body and maybe one or two
> lenses. Adding a tripod at least doubles the weight
> and size of your equipment. If you go for a light
> tripod then you pay more for the tripod then the
> camera equipment. Plus IS is a good way to get around
> a tripod and in most cases still get more then
> acceptable quality for amateurs and even some
> professional requirements.
> Finally, your words sound really RUDE!
>
> > Also, most landscapes are taken with relatively
> > short focal lengths, thus
> > reducing the need and effect of IS.
> >
> > For good landscapes:
> > * Good prime
> That means you probably need at least 4 lenses which
> adds weight, cost, space, etc.
>
> > * Short focal length
> Landscapte does not necessary need short focal
> lengths.
>
> > * Small aperture, diffraction limited
> That's where the IS comes in.
>
> > * Less glass (== no IS) == better
> So how come all the optical performance of the new
> 300/2.8IS, 400/2.8IS etc is at least as good as the
> older version. I have not heard anything that these
> new IS lenses have less resolution, contrast or flare
> problems.
>
> > * Bigger negative (medium/large format) == better
> Read what the original poster asked for and you know
> that this is no option for him.
>
> > * Tripod is a necessity
> See above.
>
> In general you are writting a message that really has
> nothing to do with what the original poster wanted to
> know.
>
> 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
***********************************************************
