--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Jane, > > Well, IS is less significant for shorter focal lengths. Are you actually > getting blurry images using this lense? What shutter speeds are you > shooting at? I use the 24-70 on a 1V with the BP-E2, and it's rock solid. > I do admit, I run out of "room" using 400 indoors with incandescent > lighting, so I tend to use a strobe, or switch to the 24/1.4...then I'm > fine. I'll shoot down to 1/15 and get quite decent shots, but at 1/30 with > the 24/1.4 I get sharper pictures. > Well, the 24-70 is my favorite lens. Usually in conference I'm shooting in weird light; when I can, I'm at 1/15 to 1/30, and depending on where I'm located, focal length changes rapidly.... and I take the 70-200 2.8 IS for long shots. For flash, I use my trusty OLD Metz 45 CT-3. It's more a weight issue than anything else. The flash just adds even more, and my hands are small (strong, but small). After a day of shooting, my hands get really tired (along with a complete lack of sleep at night, since the images have to be shown the next day "live" at the conferences), so yes, I DO get some blurry images but it's not the fault of the lens.
I was just wondering if the IS would be worth considering so I could do some of the work I do without the flash. It's a random thought, and if they DO issue a new lens, then I would like to try it first. My inclination is to agree with you on the short focal length being aided much by the IS, but I'll try anything once if it will make my work a little easier :-) Jane ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
