jim_j2

<p>Hi Jeff,</p> <p>I don't quite understand how my post is simply just <em>wrong. </em>Nor, did I ignore the context given.</p> <p>No, I don't consider myself a Professional but, I do have considerable experience with the use of Image Stabilization and long focal length lenses.</p> <p>The small concert venues that my few experiences are made up of did in fact offer me the opportunity to use a Tripod, get upon the stage with the performers or, do just about anything. Of course I did also have the opportunity to get permission from the performers and converse with them prior to their performance and get a feel of their "Do's & Don'ts" in shooting their performance.</p> <p>My apologies for stepping on your toes! Sorry I just happened along the Gentlemens question that no-one had yet offered any input.</p> <p>This is a fine example of why I don't hang around here much anymore.</p> <p>Best wishes,<br> Jim j.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Mojo,</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm about to purchase a 70-200 f2.8 lens, and I'm not sure if the added cost of IS will be of true benefit to me?</p> </blockquote> <p>It's sort of hard to give you a definitive answer to your question. Do you think a Volkswagon Beetle would be the best car for <strong>me</strong> to buy?</p> <p>As you probably already know, there is considerable difference in focal length from your 85 mm to the 200mm as well as the magnification of the view. Any movement, (Not subject movement as Mark has pointed out above.) camera shake etc., etc., that may not be visibile in your images at the lower focal lengths may well show up in the higher focal lengths.</p> <p>IMHO it all boils down to how much you're willing to compromise your ISO & Aperture settings to maintain adequate higher shutter speeds. And/or how much Hand Held vs Tripod shooting you prefer.</p> <p>My personal experience is that I have two lens with IS. The EF100-400 and the EF 100 f2.8 Macro. Although my holding techniques are probably well above average, I personally wish my EF 50mm, f1.4 and my 17-50mm also had IS. And, I might add that I do lug around a Tripod most of the time but, the IS is certainly nice for any Hand Held work!</p> <p>Edited a bit after posted!</p> <p>Best wishes,<br />Jim j.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Erin, IMHO I doubt you'd miss that 50mm FOV on the lower end of the zoom range and, to me, that 200mm gain on the upper end would certainly justify the consideration. When shooting Birds & Wildlife I usually find myself zoomed all the way out to 400mm and desiring more! And, my "hunting" skills are very good allowing me to get closer to the wild subjects than many. I do also in some instances use the 1.4X TC which works fairly well with the100-400 on subjects that don't move around fast or often. If you should decide to view any of my posted photo's here you may find some useful info under the details tab. I'm pretty consistent in providing equipment used and details. Even in wildlife, I'd be at the top of the list admitting that a good Tripod & Monopod is one of the absolute best investments and biggest bang for the buck that you'll find in your desire for sharp, crisp photo's. Yes, they can seem to be a pain but for me, well worth the added effort. Again, Best Wishes, Jim j.

"I mostly shoot wildlife and my kids (rodeo, wrestling, track, etc), with some portrait photography thrown in." I've been very satisfied with my 100- 400 L for several years now and, it was originally purchased with the "biggest bang for the buck" thought. However today, if faced with the same decision, I'd be giving the Tamron 150- 600 serious consideration. I seem to recall it's MSRP somewhere around $1100.00 (US). That might even leave enough of your budget to look for something like a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the Canon 85 f1.8, either of which would perform well for most of the non-wildlife, children & portrait type desires. You might also consider renting the telephoto's before laying the purchase money down. As previously indicated, technique is very important with larger lens as well as the overall slight learning curve involved for sharp, crisp wildlife photo's Best Wishes, Jim j.

Paulina, Hopefully some of the individuals with more recent experience will chime in. I haven't done any UW photography since the late 70's so I'm just a little outdated as to other offerings. Most of the manufacturers i had any experience with were usually more pricey than Ikelite, and may not even still be in business. Ikelite has always had a large selection of housings for a broad range of camera manufacturers, a good reputation and a product that offered the most bang for the buck in my opinion. Unfortunately, it appears that underwater photography remains fairly expensive! BTW, Welcome to PN! Sorry I don't have more info to offer. Jim j.

Paulina, You might take a look here. http://www.ikelite.com/ Just a hint, . . . It's preferred around here that you not post identical questions in multiple forums. The good news, . . . I've never heard of anyone being sent to the corner for doing so by the Moderators but, don't be offended if your other identical post gets removed. Happy Housing hunting! Jim j.