anti-shake/ image stabilization... holy crap!
 

not that i can buy it right now, but i went to the local camera shop, and tried it out.

un-fucking-believable!
this has got to be some miracle military tech that escaped from Groom lake :lol:

i had tested it out on a Canon EFS 70-300 F4-5.6 IS... i think the same one that Darkel bought.

anyway... just a few thoughts:
this lens is pure witch craft as far as its tech goes. its optics are a little better then my quantaray offers... but not much better based on my test images.... although, it ought to be 200x better then when shooting moving objects. its still not as sharp as i'd like it.

after testing the minolta 7D the other day, with built in CCD image stabalization... i have to say it is nowhere near the quality of the lens based IS... but still pretty good.

i'm definately looking forward to buying such a lens :)

I have it too and definitely a must have for anything above 100 mm IMO. Especially if you use a polarizer.

That said, for fast moving objects, it's focusing speed is too slow and it will always be a fraction of a second late (car not perfectly sharp). Once you'll try an L lense all of a sudden this 70-300 feels VERY slow, but in isolation it's very good and IMO it should be heaps better than any Tamron, Sigma or Quantaray in the similar price range

^^^
actually, the L series is exactly what i intend to buy...

i did notice the slow focus time... does the 350D have a 9 point AF? i also haven't tried it with a polarizer on...which really would slow the nessisary shutter speed anyway....

hopefully sooner then later... i'll keep you informed ;)

Re: anti-shake/ image stabilization... holy crap!
 

IS sure is great, I've taken photos at 400mm with a shutter speed of 1/80 and got sharp results.

The Minolta 7D Image stabiliser is just as effective as the Canon version. The difference is the Minolta version is based on the sensor in the camera so you don't see the stabilization effect through the viewfinder.

Never compare some consumer grade lens with a pro L one, your wallet will be grateful :P

Nthfinity > be sure you're prepaired to the price of an L IS lens, if you do then don't hesitate a second :)

The 2 IS modes on my 70-300 still leave me sceptical, can the IS mode 1 mean Image Shaker when you try to make a panning shot in a rush @ low shutter speeds ?

BTW I've heard many people talking about those magic (and a bit less expensive than the equivalent IS models) 200/300mm f2.8 without IS, it's IMO not that great considering some usual situations when the car is far away and the light is crap, "whoaa f2.8 power" and they end up with 2mm of the front bumper sharp and the rest nicely blurred o_O

For info, (Applies to 300D, 350D, 10D, 20D, 30D)

Focal length of 200mm
Aperture : F2.8
Subject distance : 30 meters

Gives a total depth of field of : 2.4 meters (in total sharpness)

This is enough for cars - the out of focus falls off gradually.

Thanks for the information, I was too lazy to check my depth of field tool (but of course I didn't really mean 2mm :P )

yeah, the price difference is massive :lol: but after using such low quality lenses for such a long time already... its just not something i want to do at all; if that makes sense.

im taking more and more photos, and its something im really loving... and i see it as something of a long term investment. anyway, it will be a while before i buy my next set of lenses... but Ebay doesnt seem like an altogether bad choice for looking either.

BTW, IS mode 2 is for shooting moving objects, IS mode 1 is for stabalizing the whole picture. that should make things work a little better.

Yep I knew, but you probably know how it is, you don't even have half a second to react (especially when you're shooting stationary cars) and I don't think I'll always have the reflex to put it on mode 2 :hmm:
Just wanted to know the possible consequences of a forgetting.

im thinking the consequences would be a more stable/sharp picture as a whole, rather then a blurred (from panning) background... but i'd also think it would be blurred anyway.... just not as much

IS & VR-systems are taking photography (image quality) to a whole other level. The most impressive feature that digital imaging offers is the increase in sharpness.
As far as I'm concerned, the quality of the optics has increased more than a lot as well. And that's necessary too, 'cause lenses we use nowadays reach a saturation point by 22 megapixels. At least that's what I have read in an article written by a technician/scientist.
I think that there is still lots of improvement possible when it comes sensor development. I'm thinking about clearness, power management, file compression etc etc ... . But people who say that shooting film provides you better images than digital sound alienated to me. I don't discuss with them, I give in immediately and move on :D :lol: Digital is already better than film. The Canon Ds II and Nikon's D2x are just mindblowing and the "scary" thing is that the next generation DSLR's are lurking around the corner. BRING IT ON !!!

Anyway, enough said about that, just want to say something about the stabilization systems.
One of the most important things about this system is that you don't just have to point and shoot. You have to give this system some time to come into action :) After that, you hardly miss :!:
It's like SDK2003 said, taking ultra-sharp images at 400mm with a shutter speed of 1/80 is perfectly possible. You can clearly see when the stabilitazion system has set itself, you see when the stabilization system provides the stability needed.

Vive Le IS & VR :D :P


Cheers

lol, this thread is chinese for me. I have no knowledge on cameras =(

Weird... with my 70-300 when I shoot between 70 and 100 mm and min F, ence 4.0 to 4.5 I usually end up with the rear of the car already blurry, so I really don't see how 2.8 could be good for such pics..

like here:
http://img124.imagevenue.com/loc245/..._300SL_086.jpg

A few things could effect that.

1: Subject distance - If the subject is closer then you get less depth of field.
2: Focus/Depth of field - The standard rule for depth of field is 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind. So focus toward the front of the subject and you should be ok.
3: Unless you need a wide aperture due to low light then you might as well use a higher one - F8 or above.

I admit I always focus on the part closer to me (it's usually also much easier since there are more details to be seen). In this case I was at around 30 meters and that's why I posted the picture. You said F2.8 should cover in total sharpness 2.4 meters from that distance so basically F4.5 like in my case should cover more (couldn't go higher because of the polarizer) but it's pretty obvious the front of the car is not sharp anymore, and not just slightly.
I only used F2.8's 16-25 and 24-70 and and such focal lenghts it's perfect, but I fear for a "long" 3/4 subect a telelense at F2.8 is a bit borderline if you want the full car sharp.. that said.. it's better to have only part of it sharp than everything blurry because the lense can't reach such apertures :D