Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Peter,
I didn't mean to imply that the lenses did not work with a tripod, I merely
ment to state that the IS did not work with a tripod. However, these lenses
are so heavy you have to use a tripod so my main point was that there is no
reason to buy them if you can't us the IS function while the lense is sitting on
a tripod.
My real question is image quality.
Gary
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> Gary,
> Why wouldn't the original lenses work with tripods? Just flip the swicth
> and shut off IS and its a regular lens.
> Peter K
>
> > ----------
> > From: Gary D. Whalen[SMTP:whalen@circle.net]
> > Reply To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 9:57 AM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica 400 2.8 vs Canon 500 f4, Leica 280 vs
> > Canon 300
> >
> > Robert,
> > Thanks for your input. I definitely WANT to go with Leica but the new
> > Canon
> > IS lenses DO work with a tripod. This is an improvement over the original
> > IS
> > lenses because you are correct, they did not work with tripods. The fact
> > that
> > they now work with tripods is one of the reasons I am considering them.
> > That and
> > the weight and $$$$.
> >
> > Robert G. Stevens wrote:
> >
> >