70-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (Page 5): I have used the 2.8 IS model for more than a year. I get into many situations where monopod and tripod mounted images are just not...

peggyjom Loc: Pacific Northwest

CanonShot wrote:

quote=ramcasty I know that IS lens helps or keeps... (show quote)

Ditto!!!!

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

We have to be VERY careful we do not appear to be forcing our opinions on other folks that quite clearly take a different stance..

My wife owns a light blue car, she likes that colour but is it the best colour, or is it the best car?

The f2.8 lens 70-200mm zoom lens is a nice lens, it can prove advantageous in low light conditions and the stability hardware gives us more scope to take hand held images, the other point that folks have so far not mentioned is that its speed of focussing is FAST, VERY fast and to me that is a very significant plus but...

If we don't need these options and embarrassingly, if we cannot afford them, then will that mean horrible pictures not worthy of posting?

Of course not although so far I have not seen any pictures post by folks using a pin hole camera.

If we can afford to buy the lens then grab it with both hands, if the stability option is a step too far and you cannot save up any-more money, or you just cannot justify the extra expenditure, then who cares? If you don't want the 2.8 and prefer a lesser model, then who cares?

Are we thinking about new or second-hand? You can buy some excellent lens second-hand that look as good as new and if buying second-hand or refurbished is the difference between stability or not then if it were me, I know which one I would opt for..

The OP has asked a very sensible question and hopefully we have all been polite in our replies and have not got too passionate regarding the model we recommend? :oops:

color

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Thanks Gessman. I tend to agree with you - and while I would prefer to pay less and get more - - I really don't want to pay a lot and end up wishing I had waited, paid more and purchased the best I could. I'm new to DSLR and appreciate your comments.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Is the L glass 3x sharper than Tamron or 3x faster than Tamron since it's 3x as expensive?? I doubt to the amature, or even advanced level photographer they would even be able to tell the difference at an image of 20x30 or less. Sharp is only as sharp as an individual sees it. It's kind of like the new TVs that say they are sharper than those of 2 years ago---don't look any sharper than my 3 year old Sony because that is the best that my eyes can see and it doesn't matter who looks at that TV, sharp is only as sharp as the individual viewing it. You're picture is beautiful, do I think it could be shot the same way with a $900 Tamron lens, absolutely. As far as fast focus I use my Tamron when shooting baseball. It may be a tad bit slower than mt 18-270mm but if it's fast enough to get a good shot it's a moot point. I know that Canon users swear by their L series but I'm sorry with these old eyes I just cannot justify the huge price difference.........

gessman Loc: Colorado

coco1964 wrote:

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Is the L glass 3x sharper than Tamron or 3x faster than Tamron since it's 3x as expensive?? I doubt to the amature, or even advanced level photographer they would even be able to tell the difference at an image of 20x30 or less. Sharp is only as sharp as an individual sees it. It's kind of like the new TVs that say they are sharper than those of 2 years ago---don't look any sharper than my 3 year old Sony because that is the best that my eyes can see and it doesn't matter who looks at that TV, sharp is only as sharp as the individual viewing it. You're picture is beautiful, do I think it could be shot the same way with a $900 Tamron lens, absolutely. As far as fast focus I use my Tamron when shooting baseball. It may be a tad bit slower than mt 18-270mm but if it's fast enough to get a good shot it's a moot point. I know that Canon users swear by their L series but I'm sorry with these old eyes I just cannot justify the huge price difference.........

quote=gessman quote=color This discussion has be... (show quote)

No, of course a Canon is not 3X anything that of a Tamron just as a Lamborghini isn't 3X faster or better than a Corvette, but that's not how things are priced, 'by the pound.' The price goes up exponentially for just a fewer degrees of improvement. That said, my friend, I discovered a long time ago that there's not a hell of a lot one can say that's likely to change the mind of a happy man, nor should you, so on that note, I'll return to lurking. I would just point out, before I go though, that I was mostly trying to address the question of a person who is seeking some helpful input in making an upcoming decision, not trying to generate a bone of contention or cast dispersion upon the choices of others. That would never be a goal of mine. Sorry if anyone perceived anything I said in that light. Late at night when I am scurrying away from both the 'sandman' and the 'grim reaper' sometimes I don't choose my words as well as I might otherwise.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Well Gessman, I agree with you 100% on everything you have said here ! - and I would add that L lenses not only focus FAST , but ACCURATE ! I can say this because I have used Tamron, Sigma and Canon L. As far as glass goes, Flourite is the acknowledged best material for long lenses - and only Canon uses it ! I will say that the Sigma 100-300 F4 that I have and currently use comes very close to matching an L lens !

gessman Loc: Colorado

imagemeister wrote:

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Well Gessman, I agree with you 100% on everything you have said here ! - and I would add that L lenses not only focus FAST , but ACCURATE ! I can say this because I have used Tamron, Sigma and Canon L. As far as glass goes, Flourite is the acknowledged best material for long lenses - and only Canon uses it ! I will say that the Sigma 100-300 F4 that I have and currently use comes very close to matching an L lens !

quote=gessman quote=color This discussion has be... (show quote)

Well, dagnabit, I wanted to go back lurkin' but I also feel like I left something unsaid. First though, imagemeister, I have the 100-300 f4 Tamron and have used the dickens out of it. I bought it myself, on purpose, before I got the 70-200 Canon lens and this is where I want to join my comment back to what Coco and I were talking about, and address a comment he made. I'm not some wealthy elitist but rather, simply a hobbyist with a great deal of passion for my chosen hobby. I would also be reluctant to plunk down a wad of bucks for the 70-200 too, which is why I had the Tamron 100-300 first.

I am indeed a fortunate ol' man who happens to have three sons who keep buying me expensive camera gear because they want to see me happy, active, and enjoying life. They ask me what I want for my birthday and I, understanding their finances and unashamed, tell them what I would like and they go get it. I had a 20D and the Tamron 100-300. I wanted more lens so first they bought me a 400 5.6L non-IS lens. After that, they got me a 5D2 for Christmas 2009, the month it came out. Then I wanted the 70-200 and they got it. Then came the 100 2.8 IS macro and they got that. Next, it'll be the 16-35 and everyone will be happy. I was pretty content with my 20D and the Tamron 100-300 but there were shots I wanted that I knew I couldn't get. I look at it like this - I put out some bucks over the first thirty years of their lives and since nobody's getting hurt here, I have a pretty clear conscience. So, please don't figure I'm an overly well-heeled ol' dude over here just spouting this stuff 'cause I can have anything I want.

I say the things I say out of no concern for self-gratification nor aggrandizement but simply because I honestly feel that if you are ultimately passionate about what you do, you should investigate what's available and get what seems to be the best tools for the job as you perceive them to be and do so even if it requires some minor level of reasonable sacrifice. Notice I did not say make your kids sacrifice but even then if it is going to lead to a better situation for all. Above all, don't be a person who pulls up short of where they really want to be and 'make do' when the situation does not call for it.

I wish I had been in possession of these tools when I was younger and in a better position to utilize them but alas, that wasn't the case. It's "spilt milk" but I'm damn sure enjoying life right now, 'cept for declining health issues, and am trying to pass on what I think is some fair and reasonably accurate information as I perceive it from the perspective of a serious hobbyist, not upset anyone else or attempt to appear to be trying to 'diss' anything that anyone else has to say. I'm just sharing my experience which is bountiful. We've come a long way in my lifetime and it's a wonderful time to be alive. Go for it! Now, I'm going lurking for sure. There's lots of other folks in here who have good stuff to say and I don't want to get in the way of that. Finally, it's like a good friend of mine from Texas used to say, "you can just simply piss off a lot more yellow-jackets with a longer stick."

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

gessman wrote:

imagemeister wrote:

gessman wrote:

color wrote:

This discussion has been great! I am planning for the day that I can purchase a 70 - 200 mm f2.8. I think that IS will be the way to go for me. I shoot with a Canon 60D and am not sure if I should stay with the Canon L series or will a Sigma or Tamron do equally as well?

I'd just like to say, for what it's worth, that I have Sigma and Tamron lens but they stay at home in ziploc bags to avoid accumulating dust. My over-abiding sense of this is that L glass is, on balance, sharper than either Sigma or Tamron, one on one, although I cannot attest to that 100% across the whole spectrum of lens but that's probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the L glass is quicker to focus in most cases. Enough quicker to make it worthwhile. I shoot mostly action shots, semi-pro football, wildlife, etc. To me, it's no competition. Others will disagree - mostly, it would seem, those who have Sigma and Tamron but no L glass.

When it comes to glass, it seems true that you get what you pay for, in general. Lots of folks come on here and say, "I'm happy or I'm satisfied" with such and such lens and I don't doubt them. I have invited many of them to demonstrate what makes them happy by putting some example images on here but they often do not respond by doing that. I don't think it's adequate for people to come on here acting like seasoned pros advocating what they own and use without being willing to show the rest of us exactly what they are saying. Some of them are just lonely, I suppose and need to join into the conversation even when they know they have nothing to contribute that will help a person out who is trying to make a decision. Frankly, I wouldn't ask for advice very often from the folks on here. Too many people obviously don't have much to offer but do anyway. Now, that's my 'being nasty' for today even though I'm not lying. Tomorrow is a new day. Maybe I'll watch my tongue a little better and be a little more generous tomorrow. It's probably just the stress of the holiday.

quote=color This discussion has been great! I a... (show quote)

Well Gessman, I agree with you 100% on everything you have said here ! - and I would add that L lenses not only focus FAST , but ACCURATE ! I can say this because I have used Tamron, Sigma and Canon L. As far as glass goes, Flourite is the acknowledged best material for long lenses - and only Canon uses it ! I will say that the Sigma 100-300 F4 that I have and currently use comes very close to matching an L lens !

quote=gessman quote=color This discussion has be... (show quote)

Well, dagnabit, I wanted to go back lurkin' but I also feel like I left something unsaid. First though, imagemeister, I have the 100-300 f4 Tamron and have used the dickens out of it. I bought it myself, on purpose, before I got the 70-200 Canon lens and this is where I want to join my comment back to what Coco and I were talking about, and address a comment he made. I'm not some wealthy elitist but rather, simply a hobbyist with a great deal of passion for my chosen hobby. I would also be reluctant to plunk down a wad of bucks for the 70-200 too, which is why I had the Tamron 100-300 first.

I am indeed a fortunate ol' man who happens to have three sons who keep buying me expensive camera gear because they want to see me happy, active, and enjoying life. They ask me what I want for my birthday and I, understanding their finances and unashamed, tell them what I would like and they go get it. I had a 20D and the Tamron 100-300. I wanted more lens so first they bought me a 400 5.6L non-IS lens. After that, they got me a 5D2 for Christmas 2009, the month it came out. Then I wanted the 70-200 and they got it. Then came the 100 2.8 IS macro and they got that. Next, it'll be the 16-35 and everyone will be happy. I was pretty content with my 20D and the Tamron 100-300 but there were shots I wanted that I knew I couldn't get. I look at it like this - I put out some bucks over the first thirty years of their lives and since nobody's getting hurt here, I have a pretty clear conscience. So, please don't figure I'm an overly well-heeled ol' dude over here just spouting this stuff 'cause I can have anything I want.

I say the things I say out of no concern for self-gratification nor aggrandizement but simply because I honestly feel that if you are ultimately passionate about what you do, you should investigate what's available and get what seems to be the best tools for the job as you perceive them to be and do so even if it requires some minor level of reasonable sacrifice. Notice I did not say make your kids sacrifice but even then if it is going to lead to a better situation for all. Above all, don't be a person who pulls up short of where they really want to be and 'make do' when the situation does not call for it.

I wish I had been in possession of these tools when I was younger and in a better position to utilize them but alas, that wasn't the case. It's "spilt milk" but I'm damn sure enjoying life right now, 'cept for declining health issues, and am trying to pass on what I think is some fair and reasonably accurate information as I perceive it from the perspective of a serious hobbyist, not upset anyone else or attempt to appear to be trying to 'diss' anything that anyone else has to say. I'm just sharing my experience which is bountiful. We've come a long way in my lifetime and it's a wonderful time to be alive. Go for it! Now, I'm going lurking for sure. There's lots of other folks in here who have good stuff to say and I don't want to get in the way of that. Finally, it's like a good friend of mine from Texas used to say, "you can just simply piss off a lot more yellow-jackets with a longer stick."

quote=imagemeister quote=gessman quote=color Th... (show quote)

And I had to have 2 daughters. Was hinting for the D7000 for Fathers Day but I think they thought I was nuts for wanting a camera that expensive. I will get one, just not as soon as I want or for that matter need. Nice shooting the BS with you and I certainly did take something away from your wealth of knowledge. Later.............

gessman Loc: Colorado

glojo wrote:

We have to be VERY careful we do not appear to be ... (show quote)

Was the preponderance of your comments intended as an advisory for me?

color

I'm not sure if my question sparked the debate about Canon vs. Sigma vs. Tamron - - or IS vs. non IS. I own an Canon camera - I own a few Canon lenses - I'm new to DSLR - every step forward is a leap for me. I'd like to learn as much as I can and therefore all of your input has been interesting to me. I clearly might not be able to tell the difference in the results between one lens and another - especially in the hands of experience. I clearly don't scoff at the idea of throwing an extra thousand dollars at something I may not need. I do know something about low lighting and fast, sharp focus. In the end, I sincerely thank you for all of your input and I guess I'll rent each lens and see what I see.

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

The attached was shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. hand held.

I've shot thousands of pictures from wildlife to as shown, day or night with this lens and never been disappointed. ( always hand held )

Save you money...........

gessman Loc: Colorado

rick21043 wrote:

The attached was shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. hand held.

I've shot thousands of pictures from wildlife to as shown, day or night with this lens and never been disappointed. ( always hand held )

Save you money...........

Wow, nice shot, but 'never' and 'always?' hmmmm!

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

The people that know me can vouch for my statement,

I hand hold all my lenses up to the 800mm. (I use a lot of ISO)

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

rick21043 wrote:

The people that know me can vouch for my statement,

I hand hold all my lenses up to the 800mm. (I use a lot of ISO)

Ooops, further clarification......... Never was disappointed with the lens........on me, many occasions.

As far as hand holding lens, I get a much better % of capture of diving eagles or alike grabbing fish out of the water than I would using a tripod.

Enjoyed your humor.

gessman Loc: Colorado

rick21043 wrote:

The people that know me can vouch for my statement,

I hand hold all my lenses up to the 800mm. (I use a lot of ISO)

Ooops, further clarification......... Never was disappointed with the lens........on me, many occasions.

As far as hand holding lens, I get a much better % of capture of diving eagles or alike grabbing fish out of the water than I would using a tripod.

Enjoyed your humor.

Ok, that helps but I just spent an hour on a response and I'm gonna give it to ya anyway. I'm with you on the handhold thing, usually. I shoot some action stuff just for fun, hobby - wildlife, semi-pro football, etc., and from a little distance me and a tripod or monopod can look an awful lot like a Jerry Lewis or a three stooges skit. Here's the reply I was in the middle of:

Well, while I don't doubt that you do what you say you do, 'never' and 'always' are pretty strong statements anytime they are used, about anything. Based on your last comment, and presuming that you never shoot over 800mm (which implies that if you go over 800mm you do use some kind of support which takes care of 'always.') You may 'always' handhold your lens but if you 'never' get disappointed that tells me that you aren't too particular about the outcome of your efforts and what little I've seen would sure indicate that's not true. 'Everything's a keeper.' You haven't really submitted an awful lot of images for us to see but what you've shown us are really very good. I bet if I looked through all your images I could find some that would disappoint me and I know for sure I could disappoint you with some of mine even if you're half blind. Beyond that, many of us in uhh don't know you or the people who do know you, so that's that's not something we can take to the bank.

However, you would seem to be able to lay claim to some physical attributes many of us may not have. Based on that, perhaps your suggestions may only apply to a limited few which would then be nothing less than misleading to everyone else. It would therefore be an ill-advisement for you to suggest to everyone that they do what you do. Perhaps if you know yourself to have exceptional physical capabilities, you should recuse yourself from advising others without giving them the benefit of revealing that you have exceptional strength and steadiness and allow them to fit themselves into that spectrum where they perceive themselves to be. If you do not know that you have exceptional abilities, then perhaps you should also recuse yourself since you have no idea what the basis for a standard is in comparable situations with a normal person.

Seeing your manly avatar, perhaps it was your purpose just to let us all know what a robust specimen you are. Well, I'm pretty danged robust myself but I cannot do that you're talking about - not even close and even though I didn't have a chance, I am not at all sure I could have years ago but I know one thing for sure - right now, if MY 800mm, handheld, non-IS/VR lens were a water hose, I could've had that fire out in Colorado Springs in about an hour and probably got at least some amount water on that fire 100 miles to the north, of course, with a Canon 1D or maybe a 7D, on burst mode, of course, and with a fast card. :-)