Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henning Wulff wrote: >If I'm standing on a boat and have to shoot at 1/30 of a second I'll >generally get a higher quality image with the 100-400 IS than with a >similar weight and cost 400/5.6 without IS. That's a valid >comparison. If we're talking about shooting on land with support >available and comparing the 100-400 IS with a 280/4 Apo-Telyt, that's >not a valid comparison for a number of reasons. Why is the land comparison not valid if the boat one is? >The IS portion is a compromise. Exactly right. There's no perfect solution, and a great many people have chosen to sacrifice some potential image quality for the reduced motion blur, and I can see how that would result in better overall image quality in some circumstances. I'd rather risk more camera motion blur - because subject motion often limits usably long shutter speeds - and not reduce the lens' optical potential. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com