how bad is the 24-70's camera shake?

[hamlet]

Hamlet,

This isn't the first thread where you've opened asking a question to which you supposedly wanted the answer too, then after getting the answer tried to claim your question was more technical thus the answers previously given were wrong, only to get additional answers and to finally finish with you coming in and lecturing all the people who's time you just wasted on why their answers were wrong.

Normally I'd mark this thing down to simple miscommunication. I did, indeed do exactly that the first time it happened. But this isn't the first time it's happened. So, I stand by my last recommendation. You want any more answers, google them. Do your own research. I have better things to do than to try to answer questions in earnest that are actually being asked in bad faith.

My original question was derailed some time ago, we are talking about a whole different horse now. This is the problem with declarative statements, you don't actually have to backup your claims. Because i am the first one who will freely admit that i am wrong about something, if i indeed am. Me challenging you to back up what you said isn't being dismissive, its not mean spirited, it doesn't come from bad faith.

One, I haven't made any claims.

Two, all I have done is try to answer your questions in good faith. The original question posed appeared to be someone asking for help on how to deal with camera shake. I gave the information I thought was asked for, no declaritive statement whatsoever invovled. Then as is usual in one of your threads, you went off on another tangent, then another, and were finally at the point where you do your "reveal" and impress us all on how you knew the answer to your own question all along and were just a bunch of dunderheads.

Sorry, not interested. Fell for it once on a previous thread but not again. Find it laughably childish that you would waste peoples time like this, no idea who you think your impressing, but hey, if it floats your boat. Hopefully others will figure it out soon enough as well and stop feeding your obvious need for attention.

In the meantime, I'm done. Ciao.

I'm sorry if that is your observation of what i'm actually after, but you are confusing my OP with the debate about lenses affecting how well you hold it. These are separate questions. If you actually looked in this page, you can see that i am actually an advocate of the Nikon 24-70 that has no vr, even when presented with the tamron that has vr. I go where the evidence leads me. But i digress, we obviously won't see eye to eye on the latter subject so lets just agree to disagree.

 

[hamlet]

I really think that the bulk of responses to your OP was about technique.There are many tools at your disposal to overcome a blurred image due to a shaky hand..VR is just one of them.The right side of my body shakes....I don't use VR.In fact,if you use a tri-pod,it's recommended to disable VR..

Thank you, yes that appears to be the majority opinion here. The last answer is probably as close a answer as i'm going to get. The main problem for me is that there is no way for me to rent out these lenses. Because i'm asking you something impossible, i'm asking you how the lens feels and handles. But i'd love get a whole set of professional lenses for a week and just test them out to my heart's content. But that'll always be the dream.

 

[DarkShadow]

One drink usually takes away the shakes but one to many after that usually causes stumbles. Proper technic shouldn't be a issue with this lens at all unless you shake a lot and at that point looking through the finder you would notice the subject moving all over.

 

[robbins.photo]

My original question was derailed some time ago, we are talking about a whole different horse now. This is the problem with declarative statements, you don't actually have to backup your claims. Because i am the first one who will freely admit that i am wrong about something, if i indeed am. Me challenging you to back up what you said isn't being dismissive, its not mean spirited, it doesn't come from bad faith.

One, I haven't made any claims.

Two, all I have done is try to answer your questions in good faith. The original question posed appeared to be someone asking for help on how to deal with camera shake. I gave the information I thought was asked for, no declaritive statement whatsoever invovled. Then as is usual in one of your threads, you went off on another tangent, then another, and were finally at the point where you do your "reveal" and impress us all on how you knew the answer to your own question all along and were just a bunch of dunderheads.

Sorry, not interested. Fell for it once on a previous thread but not again. Find it laughably childish that you would waste peoples time like this, no idea who you think your impressing, but hey, if it floats your boat. Hopefully others will figure it out soon enough as well and stop feeding your obvious need for attention.

In the meantime, I'm done. Ciao.

I'm sorry if that is your observation of what i'm actually after, but you are confusing my OP with the debate about lenses affecting how well you hold it. These are separate questions. If you actually looked in this page, you can see that i am actually an advocate of the Nikon 24-70 that has no vr, even when presented with the tamron that has vr. I go where the evidence leads me. But i digress, we obviously won't see eye to eye on the latter subject so lets just agree to disagree.

So your advocating a lens that you supposedly don't know anything about. Sorry fella, but my BS meter has pretty much been pegged. You can agree to disagree, I think I'll agree to just ignore you and move on. Not sure what your game is but frankly I've grown tired of playing. Like the old saying says, fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice..