-
A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
I have had a 75-300 mm f4-5.6 III USM for a little over 10 years now and have used it with myfilm SLR. It has produced some of my favorite pictures. In June, I made the jump to dSLR and bought a 7D. In doing so,I found this website. Turns out neither of my original lenses are all that well regarded. To upgrade my lenses, I bought an EFS 15-85 f:3.5-5.6 IS USM lens and have set aside the $1,200 to $1,600 to upgrade the 75-300 mm range with either the 70-200 Lf4, the new 70-300 L, or the 100-400 L.
I know this question is a little dumb on the surface, asthe reviews, MTF charts, etc all show that the "L" lenes are significantly better both optically and in build quality. But I am wondering specifically how they are better, or, how the below images would be improved with one of the "L" lenses?
I took these photos yesterday at North Hampton Beach, NH after Tropical Storm Earl moved past with my current75-300 mm lens on my 7D.I can see some purple fringing, the sea behind the surfers looks odd, and there seems to be a haze/fuzz around bright objects. But that is looking at 100% crops. Are those the areas where the new lenses will be better or are there others? Will they also be sharper?
Thanks,
Brant[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-1-100_2500_.JPG[/img]
100% crop above...full picture below. 300 mm, 1/800th, f5.6
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-1.JPG[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-2-100_2500_.JPG[/img]
100% crop above, photo below. 300 mm, 1/640, f/8.0
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-2.JPG[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-3-100_2500_.JPG[/img]
300 mm, 1/800th, f/5.6
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-3.JPG[/img]
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I can see some purple fringing, the sea behind the surfers looks odd, and there seems to be a haze/fuzz around bright objects. But that is looking at 100% crops. Are those the areas where the new lenses will be better or are there others? Will they also be sharper?
Hi Brant,
Those are the main areas, yes. The images from any of the L lenses that you mention will be sharper, suffer from less chromatic aberration (purple fringing), and have better color and contrast than images from your current lens.
Looking at your shots, you'll probably want the longest lens possible - that would be the 100-400mm. However, based on the MTF charts, the new 70-300mm L lens seems to be sharpest of the three. It has better IS too, but that's not a big factor at the shutter speeds you're using above. The new 70-300mm L is also not going to be much bigger (physically) than your current 75-300mm (fatter, but not much longer). The 100-400mm is a substantially longer and heavier lens.
The 70-200mm f/4L is a fine lens, especially the IS version which falls within your budget. But for shots like those above, giving up 100mm on the long end is not a great idea. So, my recommendation would be to wait for the reviews of the new 70-300mm L lens, assuming you're not in a rush for a new lens. The focal length is the same as you've got now. Or, if you feel you need the extra reach (if you routinely crop shots as you did above, then you do need as much reach as you can get), the 100-400mm on a 7D is a great combo.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
This is a blast from the past for me. Here's an illustration of the quality differences (all from my XTi) between my 75-300mm f/4-5.6 vs. my 24-105mm f/4L. I took these back to back with the two lenses.
300mm full photo:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ndom/300mm.jpg
24-105mm full photo:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1.../IMG_0296L.jpg
300mm 100% crop:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...G_0302_100.jpg
24-105mm 100% crop:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...G_0296_100.jpg
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Delta,
:), I am glad I am not the only one. Justifying ~$1,500 to essentially replace a lens you've been happy with isn't always easy. But after looking at your images, I went back andcompared 50-100% crops of my EFS 15-85 and my 75-300 III USM. Pretty consistently, the crops from the EFS 15-85 were sharp, no CA, etc. In fact, some of the 100% crops were amazing, while some just a little off. But the crops from the 75-300 III USM were pretty consistently "soft" (I believe that is the term Bryan used in his review). So, in thinking about it, the 75-300 III USM probably gives me acceptable uncropped images. But with a new lens, I will get better uncropped images but also the ability to crop a section of the image and use that for my picture.
John,
You areexactly onmy next problem,which lens? If I didn't need to replace the 75-300 lens, then I could have spent my money on a couple of lenses, such as a macro (100 mm f2.8 or f2.8 L), a flash, and maybe a portrait lens (85 f1.8). But I do use the telephoto range, so I think I'll decide between the 70-200 f/4.0 L, 70-300L, and the 100-400 L. The 70-200's are appealing because of there IQ, size and weight, but they only go to 200 mm.The 100-400L has the extrareach and IQ are the pluses and the size and weight the minuses. And the 70-300L may have the best IQ of them all, and sits right between the other lenses in terms of reach, size and weight. Plus, it most directly replaces what I currently have.
But I have noticed that many of my favorite pictures posted in this forum have been taken with the 100-400L at 400 mm. Whether it be from air shows, wildlife, etc....it seems the extra reach helps getgreat photos. So, I think I'll wait on the 70-300L reviews and try to find a photo shop that stocks the 100-400L so I can check out the lens in person.
Thanks again,
Brant
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Brant,
Looking at your surfing images I think you purchase as much focal length as possible, it will be tough for any lens to give great images with such a large crop. You definitely need 400mm or more, if the super tele's are out of budget then look at the 400 f5.6L, it will probably out perform the 100-400 zoom in terms of sharpness.
Joel
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
I shoot a lot of Surfing. You need at least 400mm on a crop body, as the minimum on a calm day. A 300mm with a 1.4X extender works great too. Before or after a storm 500mm would be better since the waves start further out and then the shore break pushes me further inland, creating a greater subject to camera distance. A larger aperture/faster lens also works better in inclement weather, due to heavy clouds and less Sunlight. Obviously, try to get the fastest shutter speed that you could afford. Also, a lot of surfers like to surf before and after work, so there is less light.
I have surfing samples from Tropical Storm Earl that I could post if you like. I'm off to a BBQ now, so if you're interested I could post some later.
Rich
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
I shoot a lot of Surfing. You need at least 400mm on a crop body, as the minimum on a calm day. A 300mm with a 1.4X extender works great too. Before or after a storm 500mm would be better since the waves start further out and then the shore break pushes me further inland, creating a greater subject to camera distance. A larger aperture/faster lens also works better in inclement weather, due to heavy clouds and less Sunlight. Obviously, try to get the fastest shutter speed that you could afford. Also, a lot of surfers like to surf before and after work, so there is less light.
I have surfing samples from Tropical Storm Earl that I could post if you like. I'm off to a BBQ now, so if you're interested I could post some later.
Rich
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Rich....seeing some of your pictures would be great.
I don't usually take pictures of surfing, this is probably my third time (the others were on trips to Hawaii). But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.
Hope the BBQ was good.....
Brant
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L.
The extra reach really does come in handy!
Since deltasun showed some 100% crops of rodents, I'll do the same with the 100-400mm @ 400mm for comparison - here's the original (cropped for an 8x10" print) and a 100% crop of an American red squirrel. Noisy, because of the high ISO - but quite sharp.
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/4843589379/in/set-72157624616702164/lightbox/]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/...df64efd0_z.jpg[/url]
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/...f58b3878_z.jpg
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
I currently use the 100-400 on my 7D for a lot of outdoor photography and love the combination. Its very sharp and the versatility is great. If your primary work is sports, more focal length is going to be key. As someone mentioned above, if you're not worried about having the zoom range of the 100-400, then I'd suggest the 400 f/5.6. Its sharper than the 100-400 @ 400 and its a lighter lens. The only downside is you lose IS with the 400 f/5.6. You'll be very happy with either lens.
And even though the 70-300L is supposed to be extremely sharp, I'm personally not a fan of this lens because 300 @ f/5.6 is way to slow, and it overlaps with the already excellent 70-200mm lenses. I just don't understand the point of this lens.
Mike
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich....seeing some of your pictures would be great.
I don't usually take pictures of surfing, this is probably my third time (the others were on trips to Hawaii). But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.
Hope the BBQ was good.....
Brant
The first one is from Hurricane Earl, all the others are from July 2010.
All Photos taken with 7D, 300mm f/2.8L with 1.4X Extender.http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/...d43dfcd6_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/...cbcfc943_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/...77901a71_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/...759c9236_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/...be8f0356_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/...9a921421_b.jpg
Rich
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.
Hope the BBQ was good.....
Brant
Hey Brant,
The BBQ was great thanks! Sorry, about the delay. I took over 2000 surfing photos during the Hurricane, but now I reached my monthly limit on Flickr so I can't upload anymore Hurricane photos until next month, or get the Pro Version.
Anyway, I wanted to upload those photos before I screwed it up, because I'm new to flickr, and then I thought I would comment about your decision.
I would rather cover the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm range with 2 separate lenses. I just think that it's asking the Lens to do too much, and therefore it ends up not being great at anything.
I would rather see you get one great lens now and then another great lens next time whenever that may be.
I do think that the 100-400mm is very good from 200-400mm, but it's not as good from 100-200mm. In addition it's not a very fast lens with it's variable aperture, so it has it's limits regarding fast action sports, especially if the light is limited. But the more important decision is what your needs are and then we can help you pick out a great lens.
I like your idea of the 70-200mm lens, if you could afford the f/2.8L IS II version, that would be my first choice for now. It's very sharp and it has a fast AF, and it can handle the 1.4X extender pretty well. If your needs are more geared towards the 200-400mm range then I think that the 100-400mm is very good for the money.
So, what will you be shooting?
Rich
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Very nice surfing shots Rich, the second one is my favorite.
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Thanks JJ,
That's my Favorite one too! I think that it may be going up in the window at the Surf Shop!
Look what a difference the weather has on the photos, as they were all taken at the same beach with the same equipment, and similar settings!
Rich
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
[So, what will you be shooting?
Rich
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Rich,
Great pictures. The second is also my favorite but I really like the second to last as well (someone trying to control chaos). Great lighting and I also like your angle/vantage point.
As for your question, I tend to shoot anything that interests me. I take 2,000-2,500 pictures a year with my point and shoots, lots of family functions, trips and the pets. My wife and I don't have kids yet, but I do have seven nieces and nephews. But, the 7D has done exactly what I wanted it too, opened up photography as a hobby. And I am still learning what I will shoot fora hobby. I suspect, again, everything that interests me.Since July, I've already taken 1,200 photos with my 7D ranging from the surfers and humming birds I posted to bugs, flowers and a lot of our pets. Also, a lot of those were just learning or testing different lenses.
So, I am going to need a couple of good flexible lenses and the question is which one first as I am pretty sure in a year or two I'll have both.I can makearguments for having something that is best in the 70-200/300 mm range that can be extended or having the 100-400L, which covers the entire range (and can be extended out to 560/800 mm). Right now I am planning to wait until mid-October, see if Canon releases any more lenses for Photokina and wait for the reviews for the 70-300L and the newextenders. Granted, I am not sure when we'll start seeing the reviews. I also have a friend with one of the Sigma's that goes out to 500 mm. We're hiking soon with our cameras, so hopefully, I'll get a chance to play with that lens (although, I think I'll stay with Canon when I buy).
Mike. I guess the way I am looking at the 70-300L is in comparison to the 70-200 f/4 L IS with a 1.4 extender. They would cover a similar range with the same aperature at 70 mm and 280/300 mm. The primary questions I have are what is the aperature of the 70-300L between 135-200 mmand a comparison of the image quality between the two lenses. Then it is just a size/weight issue as cost is about equal and the fact that the 70-300L gives you the package in a single lens.
I'll start to see if I can put the money together for the 70-200 f2.8 L II IS. It does seem to be a great lens.
Thanks again for everyones input.
Brant
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
You only have to answer to yourself. many of the people who post here are quite fanatical about throwing lots of money at a tiny improvement. I hate to admit it, but that fits me as well.
However, in the final analysis, a fuzzy photo of the right subject or composition is worth a thousand technically perfect images but a subject of little value.
Remember the amateur photographer who was in the right place at the right time when Mt St helens exploded. He got spectacular images, but the technical quality was no better than a person can get with a digital point and shoot camera today.
Still, that was a money shot, one that no one else got.
So, don't worry about what others may say about your equipment, if it works for you, its right for you.
That said, a big upgrade would be for you to go to the 70-300mm IS at about $600. I think you will like it compared to the lens you have now.
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Rich,
Great pictures. The second is also my favorite but I really like the second to last as well (someone trying to control chaos). Great lighting and I also like your angle/vantage point.
As for your question, I tend to shoot anything that interests me. I take 2,000-2,500 pictures a year with my point and shoots, lots of family functions, trips and the pets. My wife and I don't have kids yet, but I do have seven nieces and nephews. But, the 7D has done exactly what I wanted it too, opened up photography as a hobby. And I am still learning what I will shoot fora hobby. I suspect, again, everything that interests me.Since July, I've already taken 1,200 photos with my 7D ranging from the surfers and humming birds I posted to bugs, flowers and a lot of our pets. Also, a lot of those were just learning or testing different lenses.
So, I am going to need a couple of good flexible lenses and the question is which one first as I am pretty sure in a year or two I'll have both.I can makearguments for having something that is best in the 70-200/300 mm range that can be extended or having the 100-400L, which covers the entire range (and can be extended out to 560/800 mm). Right now I am planning to wait until mid-October, see if Canon releases any more lenses for Photokina and wait for the reviews for the 70-300L and the newextenders. Granted, I am not sure when we'll start seeing the reviews. I also have a friend with one of the Sigma's that goes out to 500 mm. We're hiking soon with our cameras, so hopefully, I'll get a chance to play with that lens (although, I think I'll stay with Canon when I buy).
I'll start to see if I can put the money together for the 70-200 f2.8 L II IS. It does seem to be a great lens.
Thanks again for everyones input.
Brant
Thanks Brant, it's greatly appreciated!
The 7D is an awesome camera and Canon's Lenses are really improving. Just as a general rule of thumb, the greater zoom ability of the lens the harder it is for it to be sharp throughout it's range. That's why "Primes Rock." But primes can be expensive and impractical when traveling, especially if you would like to cover all the ranges. The super zooms are like a swiss army knife (they're convenient), when you need a fork you're not going to go for the fork in the swiss army knife, but if you don't have a fork and you're tring to eat from a can of beans, then it's the best dam fork around that you've ever used. By the way, I do think that the mid range zooms are very good; as I own the EF-S 10-22mm, and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, but once you get beyond 2-3x zoom, the execution becomes increasingly difficult. Note, that the 70-200mm is approximately a 3x zoom.
But, Canon really hit it out of the park with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2300). It's sharper than the 70-200mm f/4L IS at all focal points. If you throw on a 1.4X extender ($300-$500: in my house we call this a combination, Birthday & Christmas present) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you'll have a 98mm- 280mm f/4L IS II. The downside of the 2.8L II is its price and weight, especially if you're going to lug it around in a back pack. If we were having this conversation last year, I would have said to get the 70-200mm f/4L, but to me the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a game changer.
You said you would like to be able to get into the 400mm range. When you state, that in a year or two, you'll have both lenses, I certainly wouldn't recommend the new 70-300mm and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1600) because there is too much overlap and not enough separation in low light larger aperture or speed. Worry about your next lens in a year or two, by then maybe Canon will hit another one out of the park.
Personally, I would rather own 1 great lens then 2 good lenses. I think it's wise to wait for the new 70-300mmL f/4-5.6L ($1500) and see the reviews and Bryans analysis. If it's sharp then you should consider it. Just be aware that it won't be great in low light, early morning dusk lighting conditions (in the woods) and it will be slow for action according to it's listed aperture range. But if you're in the woods and need a swiss army knife then it will be the best lens around. Keep in mind, I don't want to push you to spend more money, but I'm just trying to suggest other ways to put together your kit; such as image sharpness, lowlight capability, and speed.
I really hope that Canon comes out with a 200-400mm f/4L IS, similar to the Nikon Lens.
Rich
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalesusa
That said, a big upgrade would be for you to go to the 70-300mm IS at about $600. I think you will like it compared to the lens you have now.
Thanks scalesusa. I appreciate the bang for the buck stepped upgrade suggestion.And it isan interesting thought and it would allow me to take the same money and maybe get the 85 f1.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macrofor about the same money as the 70-300L, which would be a pretty good kit for awhile. I had been thinking of doing something like that but with the 70-200 L (non-IS). After reading your post, I evaluated the 70-300 mm IS again. I think why I stopped looking at it before were the ISO 12233 charts with the Canon 40D (I figure the most direct comparison to my 7D). Honestly, they are awful. But it looks much better on the 1Ds body. So I then checked out other reviews on 1.6x crop bodies and those all were very favorable. So, it is back in the mix([:)]). I am a bit of a data nut so I actually enjoy evaluating all these lenses. Really, I won't be making a decision until I see a review or at least the ISO-12233 charts for the 70-300L.
Thanks again,
Brant
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I had been thinking of doing something like that but with the 70-200 L (non-IS). After reading your post, I evaluated the 70-300 mm IS again.
I suspect the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS would be a better choice. If you look at the ISO 12233 crops from either the 1DsIII or the 40D, the 70-300mm non-L is not bad at 200mm, but loses a lot of IQ by 300mm - as Bryan states, that's the worst part of the range. I think you'll find the optical quality of the 70-300mm non-L to be better than your 75-300mm, but noticeably worse than your EF-S 15-85mm lens. Also, the build quality of the 70-300mm non-L is not great. Better than the 75-300mm, but no true USM (it's a micromotor, which is slower then ring USM and doesn't offer full time manual), and the front element rotates with focusing.
One other option to consider in your budget - the 70-200mm f/4L IS plus either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro. You'd be giving up 100mm on the long end of the telezoom, but getting a constant aperture lens.
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
If we were having this conversation last year, I would have said to get the 70-200mm f/4L, but to me the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a game changer.
You said you would like to be able to get into the 400mm range. When you state, that in a year or two, you'll have both lenses, I certainly wouldn't recommend the new 70-300mm and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1600) because there is too much overlap and not enough separation in low light larger aperture or speed. Worry about your next lens in a year or two, by then maybe Canon will hit another one out of the park.
Personally, I would rather own 1 great lens then 2 good lenses. I think it's wise to wait for the new 70-300mmL f/4-5.6L ($1500) and see the reviews and Bryans analysis. If it's sharp then you should consider it. Just be aware that it won't be great in low light, early morning dusk lighting conditions (in the woods) and it will be slow for action according to it's listed aperture range. But if you're in the woods and need a swiss army knife then it will be the best lens around. Keep in mind, I don't want to push you to spend more money, but I'm just trying to suggest other ways to put together your kit; such as image sharpness, lowlight capability, and speed.
Rich,
I've looked at the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II. The charts are amazing. Everyone that has one seems to love it. The cost is a bit of an issue for me, but the thing that has me are the size and weight. It is another lens (along with the 100-400L) that I need to get my hands on at a photo shop (the lastfew I've been too didn't have either). I am very tempted by the 70-200 f/4, as I can see that and the 100-400L beinga good combination.As for the70-300L,I am mostly waiting to see if the IQ is up there with the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II.If I do pick it, maybe I live with the "compromise" of great IQ and 300 mm for a couple of years and save up for a big prime? [:D]
But, your point is well taken, I need tobe careful or I'll only have slow lenses.I am eventhinking aboutmy EFS 15-85. It takes very nice sharp pictures and I love the range. But it is slow.
Thanks for the feedback.
Brant
-
Re: A $1,200 to $1,600 Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich,
I've looked at the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II. ....but the thing that has me are the size and weight. It is another lens (along with the 100-400L) that I need to get my hands on at a photo shop (the lastfew I've been too didn't have either). I am very tempted by the 70-200 f/4, as I can see that and the 100-400L beinga good combination. <span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]...I need tobe careful or I'll only have slow lenses.
Yes, weight and cost is definitely a concern. When taking those factors into consideration, I like the 70-200mm f/4L and the 100-400L combination the best.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the 70-200mm f/4L IS ($1200) or the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS ($650)? I would just like to point out the obvious, which is that the IS Version will give you an extra 4 stops, which will come in very handy, due to the long focal length as well as the actual physical length of this lens especially at dawn and dusk. So, consider that if you do forgo the f/2.8L IS II at least consider the 4 stop IS advantage of the f/4L.
I'm off to help prep my friends Sailboat for our race tomorrow.
I'll catch up with you guys you later!
Rich
