Costco. You will not believe the quality of its printing.

"There is no reason to shoot RAW + JPEG"

Is that right. I love it when folks make blanket, absolute statements about others' shooting techniques. Perhaps you meant to say that you don't find the need to shoot raw plus jpeg.

Not sure what kind of photography you do, but when I shoot a job, I ALWAYS shoot raw plus so that I can easily and quickly sort through a 1,000 or more images to discard the obvious garbage and decide which "keepers" to process from the raw files. You ever try to sort through a days worth of images by viewing Raw files on your computer?

Be careful about blanket statements

Good point.

The "upside down" position (lens pointed down) makes it natural to just reach to my hip, grab the right side of my camera without looking and swinging it up to my eye in one continuous motion. I would not even consider hanging the camera any other way and if you are using a BR type sling, I am not sure you can hang it anyway other than lens pointed down. Not about to try.

Certainly can't disagree with most of the replies here, but you are really overthinking the issue here. What you are really asking (I think) is whether there is a method that allows you to get the quality results at low shutter speeds without having to use a tripod. The answer is really quite simple and it is "No". There are times when the shutter speed will be too slow to allow for a sharp image no matter what new and improved image stabilization is used (assuming of course that there is a limit to how high you are willing to crank the ISO) or how skilled you are at handholding. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Your issue is that you do not want to use a tripod because it inhibits your "freedom". Sorry to tell you that under certain conditions, your choices are to use a tripod or settle for an unsharp image. I want a 14-2000/f4 zoom that weighs 1 lb, but no matter how hard I wish, it is unlikely to happen.

I have never heard of nor used a Dolica tripod and head, but from what I see online after googling them, I strongly suspect that you could use a pair of vicegrips to tighten the knob on your head and it will not hold your gear. In tripods and ballheads you generally get what you pay for. Add to the mix the fact that weight limits shown in advertising seldom comes anywhere near the actual weight bearing ability.

As mentioned in another reply, the real world holding power of a head is greatly influenced by the torquing forces of the gear you are mounting.

I am reasonably sure that your problem has less to do with defective springs or anything else. Your problem is simply that the head is not of high enough quality to do what you want it to do. Along the same lines, even if you were to get the gear firmly clamped in the ball, I would not be surprised if the legs flexed too much to offer firm support.

The cold hard fact is that when it comes to legs and heads, there are no bargains. It is like buying a Yugo and expecting it to perform like a BMW. I certainly understand the lure (or financial necessity) of a low priced rig, but there is no such thing as a good, inexpensive tripod or head.

Regarding the flower shot - To my eye, there is too much negative space in the image. Nothing in the background grabs me (pure green) and the stem and the withered buds add nothing to the shot and are a distraction.

The flower is the subject and I would suggest severely cropping in to get rid of the empty background and the unattractive stem. Hope this does not come across as overly harsh, but that is how I see it. If the file has enough mp's to allow the flower to the focal point and if it is sharp enough to handle the crop, it might work out well.

Totally agree. I use metal prints for flower shots, various landscapes and critter shots. Good sellers and I use some personally in my home.

I also agree that the cost to print say a 30x40, while seemingly expensive, ends up as a bargain since as mentioned, there is no framing cost. The price to dry mount and custom frame a 30x40 print is undoubtedly more than the cost of the free hanging metal print itself. Out of the box and on to the wall. No additional cost. And "floating" the metal print on the wall is definitely the way to go. Makes a stunning presentation.

Of course everything has to do with the underlying image. At large sizes, the focus has to be literally perfect and the post processing needs to be well done. Any minor flaw is magnified the larger one goes in print size. A matte paper print will be more forgiving than a metal print. As they say, "garbage in, garbage out."

Should be WHCC. White House Custom Color

I use WSHCC for my metal prints and I am completely satisfied. Excellent work and quick turnaround. For what it's worth, I find that metal prints work best in large sizes - my prefered size is 30x40. The "wow" factor of metal is somewhat diminished at sizes less than 14x16.

Bingo - I would much rather trust the tripod socket than the lens mount. I fear the solution may prove worse than the problem it purports to solve. The idea of utilizing the strap lugs makes far more sense. Those lugs were designed to take the weight.

The title of the post asks if the lens is ..."good enough..."

The simple and obvious answer is it depends on one's definition of good enough. Arguing about the merits of a lens is frankly a waste of time until you define good enough.

As the replies her clearly show, some folks answer yes and some answer no and neither answer is wrong. If you don't like the lens, don't use it. If you find it good enough, then as my kids say, "Duh! The answer is yes".

Trying to ram either conclusion down another's throat serves no purpose.

I owned a Spiratone camera bag back in the 70's where inside the bag, on the bottom, was a flat metal plate with 5 Nikon lens mounts built in. The idea was to remove the lens caps from 5 lenses, mount a lens on the camera and click the 4 other lens into the mounts in the bag. Then you just swapped out lenses without having to fiddle with an end cap at all.

It worked well and lens changing was one handed and quick. Only problem was that this was in the days when one did not use heavy zooms. The lenses I had in that bag were 50, 28, 24 and 85. The bag was made of leather and the metal bottom plate with the mounts made it very heavy. I suppose the theory would work with heavy zooms, but no one would carry that weight today.

Uh - have you ever shot with the 14-24/2.8? And by the way, the poster asked about a medium zoom, not an ultra wide.

I would reject it out of hand. Stolen? Gray market? Abused?

Modern gear is too complicated to evaluate in 5 minutes in a Starbuck's parking lot. I never quite understood the thinking that it is better to buy from a total stranger in an attempt to get a 'good" deal than from a reputable seller. I am sure that there may be an occasional true diamond in the rough through CL, but if the deal seems to good to be true.......

You willing to risk the $? Google PT Barnum's famous quote.