"John" <jjphotopobox.com> wrote in message
news:bfireu$1vg1$1arachne.labyrinth.net.au...the> I do use an R8 as it happens and the 180 f2.0 with the R8 is bloody heavy
> (and yes I do have a sore shoulder) but there is a huge advantage of all
> this extra weight. I use it for "pan" shots of cars and the extra weight
> gives lots of inertia which improves the sharpness of the images
> significantly. When I use a 180 f3.4 for the same purpose (about a 1/3 of
> the weight) my shots are generally less sharp although everything else is
> basically equal, ie shutter speeds and lens/focus sharpness. The only
> difference is that when you pan with a moving subject you need to followin> subject as smoothly as possible and the extra weight of the 180 f2 helpsbag> this regard. The weight really does make a big difference. A small sandhow> might also do the trick, and heaps cheaper.
> I sometimes wonder what the Canon 70-200/f2.8 IS L would be like for pan
> shots. I believe it has a pan function but haven't heard anything aboutAt some point in time it comes down to fluid motion. The only cheap solution> well it works.
I can think of is a fluid video head and a tripod. The rest of the camera
seems to be getting smaller and lighter.
How do you get the reach with the 180 ..... is it the location you use ?