To image stabilise or not

[Gumstabber]

I'm looking at getting one of the 70-200 F4 L-series canon lenses, mainly for motorsports and other outdoor use. The difference between the 70-200 F4 IS and the F4 non-IS lenses is about £300. I plan to use the lens with, probably, the 2x teleconverter. The question is do I really need the Image Stabilisation, what actual use it?

Edited by Gumstabber on Tuesday 24th February 23:40

[RobDickinson]

It wont AF with the 2x TC! And IMO will be pretty unusable with it on anyhow, try the 1.4 instead.

As for IS, I have a 70-200f2.8 without IS and have used the f4L a lot (again non IS) and a 70-200f2.8IS.

Ofcourse I'd have the IS if it was someone elses money or if I was a pro, if not I wouldnt bother, the f4 is nice and crisp wide open quite usable, just have to get a tripod out more otherwise.

[havoc]

How much sharper is the f/4L than say the EF70-300IS f/4-5.6? The L isn't a lot more money and I'm wondering whether that and a 1.4TC (which would up it to f/5.6 anyway) would be a good replacement for the 70-300, or whether I'd miss the IS-function's "2-stops extra" equivalency in low-light?

[cirks]

might be worth reading the thread (Kermit Power's) above here - saves having two running about the same thing!!
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...

[Stu247]

RobDickinson said:

It wont AF with the 2x TC! And IMO will be pretty unusable with it on anyhow, try the 1.4 instead.

As for IS, I have a 70-200f2.8 without IS and have used the f4L a lot (again non IS) and a 70-200f2.8IS.

Ofcourse I'd have the IS if it was someone elses money or if I was a pro, if not I wouldnt bother, the f4 is nice and crisp wide open quite usable, just have to get a tripod out more otherwise.

It will AF if you tape the contacts but yes the 1.4x is the way to go. With the 2x you will need to pump the ISO up a fair bit to compensate.

[Wyvern971]

havoc said:

How much sharper is the f/4L than say the EF70-300IS f/4-5.6? The L isn't a lot more money and I'm wondering whether that and a 1.4TC (which would up it to f/5.6 anyway) would be a good replacement for the 70-300, or whether I'd miss the IS-function's "2-stops extra" equivalency in low-light?

AF will work at F5.6, yes it would be a good replacement for the 70-300 in terms of quality, especially if you want to switch up to a FF camera at a later stage.

I've found the 1.4 TC MKII doesn't seem to affect quality too badly, however i have heard a lot of people complain about the 2X TC.

The 70-200 F4L is supposed to be a fantastic lens (I've got the 2.8L IS which I can't fault other than weight if i want to carry it around all day).

Stu247 said:

It will AF if you tape the contacts but yes the 1.4x is the way to go. With the 2x you will need to pump the ISO up a fair bit to compensate.

You'll find taping the contacts will allow AF to work, however you might find it hunts a lot.

[stuthemong]

If you want to do some tracking shots, IS helps lots IME.