I don't need no stinkin' IS !

Recently I did some test shooting of the EF300mm f/4.0L USM. That's the previous non-IS version of the lens. The shots turned out better than I expected. (I also shoot with the current IS version of the lens.)
So I thought I'd share a few with my buddies here.

These are JPG originals, straight outta camera, handheld camera/lens, the way I normally do photos. Out of 8 comparable shots at shutter speeds 1/40sec to 1/125 sec, 2 turned out blurry, 6 are viable. These are two examples @ 1/125sec and 1/40 sec.

Malone might be right in saying that IS is for ghurl-men. Real men/women need no IS.....no pods either, eh ?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Judging by your taste in books, arthritis probably plays a large part in the steadiness of your hands...!

Very impressive though.

Pete wrote in post #2120699
Judging by your taste in books, arthritis probably plays a large part in the steadiness of your hands...!

Very impressive though.

Right you are there , what a thought......a side benefit of getting stiff with age. (Not that, Condyk... down boy )
Incidentally, those are bookshelves in my grandson's school library.

Petkal if you have any IS lenses you want to give me, I'de be glad to take them, even if they aren't IS i'de take them.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2120736
Petkal if you have any IS lenses you want to give me, I'de be glad to take them, even if they aren't IS i'de take them.

Nah....I want you to grow up into a real Canuck-mensch, Jag....no IS for ya.
We gon shootin' together and they see you sportin' an IS lens.....so by association people might think that I am a putz too.

Petkal wrote in post #2120753
Nah....I want you to grow up into a real Canuck-mensch, Jag....no IS for ya.
We gon shootin' together and they see you sportin' an IS lens.....so by association people might think that I am a putz too.

Hm. I'm beginning to think maybe the 100-400 L is I want is a bad idea and I should stick to the Tamron 200-500 with no IS .

Seriously, you give me any non IS lens and I'll be as grateful as any boy ever could possibly be, more so then at christmas when opening gifts .

those are excellent shots that show your ability to handhold at long shutter speeds, how you work this as evidence that you don't need IS is beyond me! Frankly i think you would be amazing with IS lol hand holding for 8 seconds lol

baybud wrote in post #2120817
those are excellent shots that show your ability to handhold at long shutter speeds, how you work this as evidence that you don't need IS is beyond me! Frankly i think you would be amazing with IS lol hand holding for 8 seconds lol

I'de pay money to see the day somebody does that sucessfully.

baybud wrote in post #2120817
those are excellent shots that show your ability to handhold at long shutter speeds, how you work this as evidence that you don't need IS is beyond me! Frankly i think you would be amazing with IS lol hand holding for 8 seconds lol

This is all in jest, Baybud. A safe shutter speed for this sort of a camera/lens combo for me is about 1/500 sec, for static/moderately fast moving objects like this.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Petkal wrote in post #2120908
This is all in jest, Baybud. A safe shutter speed for this sort of a camera/lens combo for me is about 1/500 sec, for static/moderately fast moving objects like this.

What is that car? It looks like some sportsy italian futuristic car. I realise I'm fromt he new generation, but I have no idea what that is and am curious.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2120945
What is that car? It looks like some sportsy italian futuristic car. I realise I'm fromt he new generation, but I have no idea what that is and am curious.

Not a clue Jag. Just saw it and snapped at it.
How about this one, same lens, same unprocessed JPG's, etc , etc....1/320 sec. ...100% crop.
However, I was cheating a bit here: my elbows were resting on a handrail. Perhaps you can see me in the eye catchlight.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I would have guessed a very Old Jaguar.. but can't tell from this angle as I'm no expert.
Or is this more jest? Seeing as how you are calling yourself JagWire?

Petkal wrote in post #2120963
Not a clue Jag. Just saw it and snapped at it.
How about this one, same lens, same unprocessed JPG's, etc , tec....1/320 sec.
However, I was cheating a bit here: my elbows were resting on a handrail. Perhaps you can see me in the eye catchlight.

Wow, I can. I want to see a 100% crop of that (i'm dieing to know what you look like, hehe.)

That's a pretty cool shot anyway. I have been checking the EXIF on some of these photos. You go shooting a lot, eh? i wish I was able to shoot as much (lack of transportation is and issue with me, and I live in the suburbs sort of so there really isn't much to shoot at say night, and to get to a pond I have to get a ride which takes about 15-20 minutes.)

BTW, are you allowed to take a photo of somebodies car with the liscense plate on and upload it to the web with it on? I'm just curious, not trying to get anyone in trouble or anything.

Oh I forgot to mention...


.

.

.

.

......Wait for it


Those images look soft to me

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2120975
I would have guessed a very Old Jaguar.. but can't tell from this angle as I'm no expert.
Or is this more jest? Seeing as how you are calling yourself JagWire?

Hey CDS, where have you been all evening.....we needed you on the "L collectors" thread to tell us about your experience with cleaning the 200 1.8 (?)