DSLR Photography Forum

I know, an odd inclusion; I like this shot but it's not a stunner...yet this is not the reason I'm posting it.
This is a terrifically adept lens which is a first-rate performer(should be too at the price, which is not something can say for all L lenses, as some of the wider zooms seem to have, er, fluctuant performance); I've rarely had my Tamron 90mm lose its smugness until it was near this lens. At 90mm the Tamron(or my copy) only outperforms the Canon(at 90mm) at f.5.6, and then by a hair on a gnat's crotchet.
I find the remarkable thing about the 70-200 is not that it took this shot fairly well...but that it could take it at all:
Full stretch(200mm) in low light, ISO 200 on a 350D; f.5.6 and, wait for it..., handheld at 1/60 sec.
Oh, and hanging out of an air balloon at 300ft high.
You remember the Golden Rule about tele shooting? Not to drop under the reciprocal of the focal length?
Thus, I should have been just about able to make a creditable shot, handheld, IF I was holding it steady and on the ground and IF I made sure not to choose a slower speed than 1/200sec. Given the conditions then, this shot would not have been possible without Image Stabilisation.
I just wanted to include the shot to back up my absolute relief that Canon can get something not just right but right on the money in at least some area of their output. I daresay that FF will not exactly hold this lens back either.

Zig, I'm sorry to hear that some of your lenses are flatulent. On the other hand, it's good to hear that Canon has a lens-based sensor dust removal system. (I crack me up.)

You missed that the reciprocal rule is supposed to be for the effective focal length, so 1/320 instead of 1/200, and add a half-stop-ish to the effect of the IS. It certainly does work. Although I do have to wonder why you didn't shoot wide open for that extra stop of speed, or another drop in sensitivity.

The photo's a nice composition, too, which doesn't hurt.

(And not much makes my 35-100/2.0 lose its smugness, either, but my new 150/2.8 is a surprising challenger.)

This is one of your pictures I like the most of the series you show in your gallery.

Matt, because I was in a darn balloon, hanging out, constantly in motion and unable to do more than grab in every sense. The composition was,er, fluctuant
And, I didn't say MY lenses.

The composition holds up well. The entire pic has an ethereal quality.

Say, how does the 70-200 balance on the 350? I think I have a 400, it's the xTi. I'm looking for some better glass, but was worried about the weight.

Ello Pippin: Mighty fine, I feel: I support the lens with the left hand whilst doing thumby bits with the right. The 350D just dangles off the back end quite happily really. The length of the tele helps rather than hinders, things getting a wee bit fiddly with shorter lenses but it's all nay bother.