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.
