How do YOU sturdy your Canon 70-200?

Photolistic wrote in post #2069614
I have had my 70-200 2.8L lens for a couple of hours now and I never knew it would be so hard to keep stable at 200mm. I almost want to take it back and get the IS version.

The best way I have found so far standing up with no tripod is to prop the end of the hood up with fingers. Any suggestions??

Lift weights like Ah-Nold and don't be a girly-man with a monopod.

Seriously, just get a monopod.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2103032
Lift weights like Ah-Nold and don't be a girly-man with a monopod.

Seriously, just get a monopod.

Or use the monopod to add weight. REAL men handhold the camera, lens, AND pod:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

As Rick eluded to in his previous post, do not drink a lot of caffeine either.

kwsanders wrote in post #2107618
As Rick eluded to in his previous post, do not drink a lot of caffeine either.

Big time! I'm a coffee FIEND. Shooting first thing in the morning is generally a very bad idea... I can see the darn thing shaking in the viewfinder.

Hey, I'm curious.

I'm not going to be getting a 70-200 2.8 not just because of money, but because I held one in the store and it wasn't too comfertable to handhold (when I felt the F4 I figured I can deal with the one stop less considering how much lighter the lens is.) Because of the focal length of 70-200, I know I'll be using the lens handheld quite a bit for regular use. I am now looking into getting a super telephoto in the future such as the Tamron 200-500. I was curious if the Tamron 200-500 will feel ligther or better because it is 100 grams less then the 70-200 2.8 and it is a longer lens (perhaps this means the weight is distributed better?) What do you guys think? I know if I get this lens I'll have it on a trpod and monopod (if I ever get around to getting one) quite a bit, but I am curious anyway.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2107760
I'm not going to be getting a 70-200 2.8 not just because of money, but because I held one in the store and it wasn't too comfertable to handhold (when I felt the F4 I figured I can deal with the one stop less considering how much lighter the lens is.) Because of the focal length of 70-200, I know I'll be using the lens handheld quite a bit for regular use...

I can't speak on the Tamron lens... But consider Canon's newest lens, the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Lighter and cheaper than the f/2.8 version and should help with the handholdability you envision. Just throwing that out there.

Double Negative wrote in post #2107880
I can't speak on the Tamron lens... But consider Canon's newest lens, the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Lighter and cheaper than the f/2.8 version and should help with the handholdability you envision. Just throwing that out there.

I honestly love the idea of the IS and would love that lens, but I don't see myself paying $700 extra to get IS. For that money I can get myself another lens like the Tamron. I think Canon is nuts for putting it out there for so much more. The Canon 100-400L is only like $100 more then the 70-200 F4L IS, and the 100-400L has IS!

BTw, I don't think it's cheaper then the f2.8 NON IS.

Any of the new Canon DSLR's are capable of producing excellent images @ ISO 400. You need enough ISO to ensure you are at least shooting at least 1/200th of a second when you are using the lens at 200 mm. My suggestion is set your camera to ISO 400 and see if you can live with the image quality.
This lens is not heavy.