Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, Have you used the 250 f/4? How does it compare with the 280? Jim On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> wrote: > Henning Wulff wrote: > >>The reason I said the 'boat' example is a valid comparison is that >>the lenses are of equal speed (and approximate cost) and neither can >>be used with any other stabilizing system other than the shock >>absorption of your body. > > You can use a shoulder stock. > >>The 'land' comparison isn't valid as laid out because you're >>comparing a $1500 lens against a $3500 or so lens, and when you allow >>tripod or other serious bracing options IS is taken out of the >>equation. > > I don't follow, Henning. > >>In your situation, Doug, where you take the time to properly >>research, stalk and approach a creature and use the best lens and >>best support IS becomes irrelevant unless you are forced to suddenly >>take a shot with your 280/4 plus converter handheld at 1/30 second. >>Then IS _might_ be useful. > > I often get subject motion at 1/250 sec, so a steady camera at 1/30 sec is > irrelevant. > >>I've shot with 400mm+ lenses since the early 60's, and have had 400mm >>lenses of various qualities. The best lens optically I've had is the >>first generation of 400/5.6 Nikkor P-C that had exotic glass but had >>not yet been marketed as 'ED'. > > I've also used this lens. ?I'm equally unimpressed with it's handling, but > after using the 280mm f/4 APO with 1.4x extender, the Nikkor's image > quality didn't wow me. > > >>IS is not a panacea but in many circumstances can allow you to get an >>image that you couldn't get otherwise. > > I'm not disputing this but... > >>Many types of photography depend on getting the shot at all at some >>level, and the ultimate technical quality doesn't make/break the >>shot. > > Here's where my priorities suggest something other than getting the shot > at all. > >> Here IS can be a huge aid, whether or not image quality is >> compromised, which I still believe is minimal in an of itself. > > Do you have any evidence to substantiate this belief? ?The Canon 300mm > example suggests otherwise, and that's not even including color quality in > the discussion. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >