In article <4fs789$i2o@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, jalbert@nyx10.cs.du.edu says...

>I am amazed at how many people will invest in expensive lenses with
>designer labels to get the best optics money can buy only to shoot
>images of dead still subjects without a tripod.
>for landscape work, the best optics money can buy are the ones you
>mount on a sturdy tripod. I don't know or care who makes the best
>lenses for 35mm, but whoever it is doesn't matter if you don't
>use a tripod. Bob is right-- there is no substitute for a sturdy
>tripod for landscapes. Period.
>J. Albert

Um, that is true for normal-->long lenses, but a good 20mm or 16mm
can be hand-held perfectly well for landscape photos under a wide
range of lighting conditions. Aside from the obvious advantages of
using superwides for some types of landscape photography, there is
the ease-of-use factor. I personally find a tripod too limiting -
the photo ideas flow too fast to be inhibited by even a fairly convenient (if there is such a thing) tripod. This may be a minority
view, but I would rather be limited to what I can photograph easily
and well using wide-angles hand-held, then need to carry and fight
with my medium-light tripod with Arca ball-head. It is also easier
on fellow trail-mates, especially if they are not fellow photographers!
So, I think there is a substitute for a tripod for landscapes:
a good wide-angle lens in steady hands. <-- (That's a period! ;-)
Hope This Helps