Canon lenses

[bigfishparty2000]

Thanks Donald,

True 400mm was used more but with the CF of 1.6 on the 7d and I'm assuming the same for an upgrade it makes the 200 a 320 and now were talking me just moving a few steps and getting in better position. Plus the added speed from 2.0-2.8 might be a key during the night games.

Al

[rpcrowe]

Hi Dora,
So the question really becomes "is IS worth the extra $$$". Opinions will vary - and to a degree it will depend on what you're shooting, but in my humble opinion, the answer is a resounding YES!

I will second (or third or fourth) Colin and Donald's comments regarding the value of the IS on a 70-200mm f/4L (and other lenses of this focal length)

I owned the f/4L non-IS and used it for several years. When I purchased this lens, the only two lenses with IS capability (that I knew of at the time) were the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS which was too big and heavy for my (carry all the time-everywhere) use and the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens which was a pretty poor performer.

I always felt like a slave to bright light which I needed to keep the shutter speed high enough to hand-hold the 70-200mm f/4L lens. When the f/4L IS was introduced, I jumped on it and have not looked back. It is a superb lens in all respects: build, auto-focus, and image quality all at quite a reasonable weight. I carry this lens everywhere and use it in all types of lighting conditions. I am no longer a slave to bright light and I can hand hold the lens down to 1/60 and even 1/30 second.

The ability to hand hold the lens in lower light conditions has enabled me to use it 4-5x more often that I was ever able to use my non-IS model. You cannot quantify the image quality as twice as good; although I believe that the IS does have a slight edge in both image quality and the quality of the bokeh. However since the lens cost approximately twice that of the non-IS model and I use it 4-5x more often; it has been an excellent value for my uses.

However, although the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lens can be effectively used with a 2x teleconverter, the f/4L IS loses autofocus capability on my cameras when matched with a 2x converter since it reduces the maximum f/stop to f/8 and my 1.6x cameras cannot auto focus at smaller apertures than f/5.6. I have not used the latest 2x adapter with my f/4L IS lens but, I did try an earlier model and did not like the image quality and especially the lack of A/F capability.

I do have a 1.4x converter (the original Canon model) which produces very decent image quality and a very acceptable A/F speed when combined with the f/4L IS. However, I most often use this combination on a tripod, monopod or resting on a bean bag. I have not used the 55-250mm lens so I cannot say which has the better IQ: the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC or the bare 55-250mm kit lens...

You have probably made your decision and gone on your vacation by the time you read this posting but, if I were in your shoes, I would get a second camera body so I could use both the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses without changing lenses. I might also upgrade the 18-55mm kit lens to a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (VC or non-VC). The combination of 18-50mm f/2.8 and 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lenses on a pair of cameras would be a very viable combination...

[Harpo]

Took a recent trip to Alaska and rented the 70-200 f2.8 IS L USM II plus the 2x TCIII. With my Cropped camera, that gave me what?... 640 mm max? Sometimes I could have still used more reach. Last year I was on a safari in Masa Mara in Kenya. Half the animals I wanted to take pics of were further away than those I took in Alaska. Some things I just need to get closer to if it was possible (or if I had control of the steering wheel and didn't have to deal with others with me who had a non-photography agenda).