Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Queen Mary 2 at dusk this evening (in Southampton, UK).

^ Lovely

Here is a 100% crop example for anyone considering birding with a 1.6 crop. Taken about 50 feet away - lens always says 19.1m.

I used my T1i for this.

Original pic at 200mm, f/4.5, ISO 160, 1/250sec, +2/3 EV:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mjkjr/516461015​2/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mjkjr/516400486​3/

one of my favorite landscape lenses for compressed scenes. A couple from recent trip to the eastern sierras.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Cholo wrote in post #11260400

Pretty picture of AP's gear!

Smashing Poot, those are smashing! I just wish they were a little bigger so I could enjoy them even more...
I found some monkeys up in the mountains (they weren't hard to find!)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Wow, I like the second...did they "break" that windshield wiper of the red car?

I don't think so. A woman went to the car later and kind of flipped it back up. She was smiling, so I'm guessing it was OK.

A cold seagull in Hamburg earlier today, all the white feathers proved a challenge for autofocus - a distinct lack of contrast! This one came out ok though....

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/pauly-g/5166534233/

sorry I suck at search buttons and typing in the right search phrases to find my answer. Is having an IS function worth it? I know a person around me selling one that's no and IS version for a decent price i believe.

racersky wrote in post #11267966
sorry I suck at search buttons and typing in the right search phrases to find my answer. Is having an IS function worth it? I know a person around me selling one that's no and IS version for a decent price i believe.

Racersky, just browse through some of the photos here. Do they look poor because they don't have IS? IS can be great, and if adding another $600 to the price isn't that big a deal to you, I'd go for it. However, doubling the price for what is now rather commonplace technology strikes me as something like extortion on Canon's part. If you really want IS but don't want to shell out that much, there is a thread for the new Tamron 70-300. It's apparently a real bargain (and hopefully every time someone buys one it'll send Canon a little message...).

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11237706
TMLAT, really stunning. And +1 on Stuntman Mike's "Striking photo!" comment above, too.

RL. wrote in post #11237759
nice one tourist!

Thank you both

One more shot with 5d