> -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Really, I don't know why anyone would expect to > >handhold a lens exceeding 1kg in weight (e.g. any > >70-200/2.8, or 300/4) and get away with that using > >"new technology". IS is based on the assumption that > >you can lift the lens up, because no electro-optical > >system could provide an anti-gravitational field to > >help you with that part. After only half a roll or > >so my arm fatigue would impair my judgement > >resulting in poor pictures. Admittedly I am quite > >frail and I am getting older. 10 years ago I was > >very to happy to lug around those monsterous 2.8 zooms. > > I agree that those 2.8 zooms are heavy to carry and not > that welcome for > handheld. That was why I bought the 200/2.8 instead > (already hv 77/100 for > the short end). But whenever I saw some super sharp > handheld pictures with > those IS/VR teles, I said to myself, damn I couldn't do that.
This is precisely why I bought one. I'd never owned a 70-200/2.8 before because I just couldn't get a sharp shot. I just couldn't hold the damned thing steady! Basically I needed to double the 1/focal length rule. Now I'm shooting at 200m at 1/15. It's just crazy technology. tv
