xunjas
Senior Member
tripod may be cheaper than IS.. =)
Ef 17-40 F4L
- Thread starter coolsigg
- Start date
- Status
tripod may be cheaper than IS.. =)
xunjas
Senior Member
shoot more and practice better..
bernstein1234
Deregistered
Agree...too many ppl overreliance on IS technology liao....last time lens or body where got IS one? Train yourself to handhold with steady hands is better.IS does not make up for sloppy technique.
Last time police wear shorts one.. heh heh.. Kidding...:bsmilie:
A lot cheaper than IS in fact.
police wear shorts..
ppl using film
lens is manual focus
camera manual winding
got to develop film in your own lab
pls add ur own...
Depends..some tripod can cost $1k also u know. :think:
That one i'm fully aware, even over $3k also have. But u won't need a tripod that expensive in order to simulate IS right?? Usually a less than $100 one will do, u only need to hold the camera still.
frostyfrostysnowman
New Member
oh yesss definitely.. tripods/monopods are the best ways to go for long focal lengths heh.
frostyfrostysnowman
New Member
that is true.. i've been making do with a $15 tripod from mustafa. It still holds everything nice and still.
that is true.. i've been making do with a $15 tripod from mustafa. It still holds everything nice and still.
So IS is just for convenience. But for nearly $1000 for that kind of convenience, i'd rather lug my tripod.
I'm quite amused about all the discussion and putting down of IS over a tripod. IS is definitely an advantage if you know how to use it well.
That said, I wonder why people are lamenting so much -- give technology complain, no technology also complain. Aiyoh...
Like the last quite controversial discussion here about DSLRs having LCD screen. LCD is an advantage to have, yet some people argued "don't give me LCD screen and charge me cheaper for the camera body!" That really tickled me-- Indirectly, they seemed to proudly announce to the world, I'm so good I don't need to see the images I've shot. Duh...
Same goes with IS -- Some of those who don't own IS lenses seem to say, Who needs IS? I can handhold and shoot at 1 second. As if to say, "I'm top-notch lah!"
I think the bottom line concept of making use of IS and other forms of technology seems to go awry. If you don't need IS, it does not mean IS is not generally useful. The kind of things one shoot is different too. Some need f/2.8, for others f/4 will do.
To conclude, I'd like to give an analogy. GPS is good! But you can't expect the car to drive on its own. You are the driver and you operate the car. But if you don't need to rely on the GPS, it does not necessarily mean you are a good driver, or that GPS is a gimmick. It simply means this -- you don't need a GPS.
That said, I wonder why people are lamenting so much -- give technology complain, no technology also complain. Aiyoh...
Like the last quite controversial discussion here about DSLRs having LCD screen. LCD is an advantage to have, yet some people argued "don't give me LCD screen and charge me cheaper for the camera body!" That really tickled me-- Indirectly, they seemed to proudly announce to the world, I'm so good I don't need to see the images I've shot. Duh...
Same goes with IS -- Some of those who don't own IS lenses seem to say, Who needs IS? I can handhold and shoot at 1 second. As if to say, "I'm top-notch lah!"
I think the bottom line concept of making use of IS and other forms of technology seems to go awry. If you don't need IS, it does not mean IS is not generally useful. The kind of things one shoot is different too. Some need f/2.8, for others f/4 will do.
To conclude, I'd like to give an analogy. GPS is good! But you can't expect the car to drive on its own. You are the driver and you operate the car. But if you don't need to rely on the GPS, it does not necessarily mean you are a good driver, or that GPS is a gimmick. It simply means this -- you don't need a GPS.
xunjas
Senior Member
i rather train for steady hands or use the money for other lenses. =)
frostyfrostysnowman
New Member
haha if that day ever comes, the non-IS lenses would become obsolete
well.. IS does have it's advantages, but also we need to know how to shoot properly if we want to harness the full potentials of IS, and I also agree on the fact that IS does increase the 'keep rate' of your shots and allows you to shoot in certain conditions where the environment completely prohibits tripods..
well.. IS does have it's advantages, but also we need to know how to shoot properly if we want to harness the full potentials of IS, and I also agree on the fact that IS does increase the 'keep rate' of your shots and allows you to shoot in certain conditions where the environment completely prohibits tripods..
bernstein1234
Deregistered
IS is expensive? Look no further, get the 18-55mm IS:bsmilie: unless you are on a FF cam.
xunjas
Senior Member
:bsmilie::bsmilie: the cheapest IS of canon~~ cant get any lower than that~~
Do you really need IS at 55mm? :bsmilie:
bernstein1234
Deregistered
Ya, personally I find that 18-55mm IS, though cheap, is a 'no-joke' lens. Served me well as a all-rounded lens over the past few months when I stumbled across one...
However TS must know what he is shooting, then use what lens. For me, if I go zoo and want take pic of animal close, then obviously 18-55mm is not enough, might have to use 135mm L for example (which I'd used =p)
Like many bro mentioned, 17-40L is a nice lens with contrasty colors etc, IF you know what you are shooting.
For me, 18-55IS is handy cos I'm a KS person who want to make sure most of my shots can be kept, and hence the IS. Its lack of colors and contrast can be made up with PS at home cos I'm quite a free person :bsmilie: But blurred pictures, cannot be PS-ed...
2cents
- Status
Similar threads
