In article <4ftsff$cqa@nntpb.cb.att.com>, rma@clockwise.mh.att.com says... (most of a good post deleted)
>However the original question came
>from someone wondering if he should by a faster lens because he didn't
>like tripods for landscape work. I'd say *he* could probably greatly
>benefit from a tripod. Landscapes shot at f2.8 or faster really are not
>the way to go unless you are after some specific effect of small DOF!

Heck, we agree on everything in your last post! I was originally pointing out the alternative to a flat statement by someone else that
a tripod was necessary for sharp (landscape) photos, which we all know is not true under many circumstances (though, of course, all things being equal, we would all like to have a tripod supporting the camera
during every exposure - but there are limits to practicability, which
are probably different for everyone. (I remember someone in these
groups arguing in favor of a poor zoom on the basis of its light
weight, which was more important for him while hiking than having high quality optics!) I pointed out an alternative (to using any tripod)
that I prefer to use, since many people don't realize that wide-angles can be successfully hand-held at relatively slow speeds. (When you get
down around 6-8mm on 35mm, one second hand-held exposures become possible!)
Hope This Helps