EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM - No IS

[Sheiky]

Wow, I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary. If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am, and IS is really something that is going to change my life, then I wonder how all those photographers of the past such as the ones who were on Omaha beach on D-day for example, got a single useful photograph the whole time they were there. How on earth did they have the patience to use those cumbersome 4X5" and 6x6" hasselblad, 35mm and movie cameras, that did not have any IS.

I'm pretty sure I'm with "they" so I will explain my point of view. I'm not really offended by your idea. Better yet, I can understand your point of view. However I wouldn't call your idealogy as a suggestive type. Your idea works for a few things, but is definitely not the truth for all photography. Not even for all people-photography. The words "the truth is" is what got me bothered.


To answer your question on how they did it back then is simple. They had other points to critique. Also for example: the photos you desribe are photos where something spectecular or very interesting happens. Another part with film is that every photo costs money. You better compose correctly the first time and make sure your settings are right. We have to worry less about those things, since a lot can be done later on. For press related shots it's better to have a bad photo than no photo at all.

When I started shooting, all I had was a cheapo kit lens attached to a film camera. There were no histograms, immediate reviewing of images, or adjusting your ISO midshoot. This is why I am a bit of a purist and really dont like people who swear by a new gizmo or gadget that fixes a problem that experience could have avoided.

So you don't use any post-processing either? I want to see how much of a purist you are []

and I can imagine what I'd look like standing next to this photographer trying to set up my tripod while he/she has already taken their picture.

If you were to have your tripod with you that is []

But taking longer does not mean that I'm going to necessarily have a weaker image, it just means i am going to take longer to do it. Why would that be a bad thing? Photography is about observation, seeing differently: seeing photographically doesn't happen while you are in hurry to get a shot (unless the bullets are flying).

No that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. If you have more time, your compsition might get better, you might see some other things or wait for a cloud to appear to make it more dramatic. However this would mean that you don't have plans for the rest of the day. During a citytrip you might spot more than 1 occasion and I'm pretty sure your wife wouldn't appreciate it if you take 10 minutes for each shot []

I know colleagues of mine who shoot most of their work with nothing but a 50mm prime, and I aspire to shoot as well as them, not because of what kind of lens it is or what it can do, but because of whats in the frame.

I also love my non-IS 50mm. It makes you think twice about your composition. But the simple fact is that you cannot shoot everything with a 50mm.

IS would not help a photographer like me who shoots people photography 90% of the time, but then again, isn't most photography people photography?

I rarely take photos of people(unless it's sports), so I don't know about that point. I'm not sure if IS wouldn't help you. I guess it wouldn't be necessary, but you might like it more than you think[A]


Oh and if you're getting older and get a little shaky, you might reconsider your point of view []





Edit:when I look over my post I see a lot of wink-emoticons. Sorry about that, here's a different one [:P]