IS - for daytime outdoor sports i think you are unlikely to ever need the IS
handheld indoor portraits, yes i would want the IS
again, i think you will find with 40d that the middle AF point is the only truly reliable one when using the 1.4 converter, the other points will still work but will miss focus more often - and you'll be softening your sharp prime into that of a 100-400, and have only gained about a stop at 300mm which isn't much of a gain when u r shooting outdoors in daytime, at subjects a long way away
if u planned to use the 200 most often just on it's own without the x1.4, i would get it 
cheers guys
for indoor portraits i'd look to an 15-85mm at some point or a couple more cheap fast prime lenses like the 85mm or 35mm. currently i have the 18-75 which is IS and does the job ok.
i just keep thinking the 200m prime with converter will give me much better image quality with an additional stop and same reach than the current 70-300mm and work a little better in less than ideal conditions. the 70-300mm is a cracker lens in good light but really drops the ball in less than ideal conditions.
so instead of saving for the 100-400 i can get 3 high quality prime lenses for the same cost. seems like a better deal all up as long as i use my feet for zooming.
for the cost of the 100-400 i could get
15-85mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM $400
85mm f/1.8 prime $370
200mm f/2.0 prime $750
1.4 or 2.x converter $300
and end up with much better image quality than the 100-400 and a broader focal length just lacking a little reach at the long end
i guess at this initial stage the 200mm with converter is 1/3 of the price of the 100-400 and gives me an extremely high quality 200mm lens to boot.
it will only be windsurfing shots from distance where i would use the converter.
the majority of use would be 200mm for outdoor family shots and sport shots where i don't need the reach like at burrum heads/currumbin back beach/VP etc. as long as everyone shows off at the shore i'm sweet.... 
bang for buck is very high with the 200mm.
hi ken,
there is too much gear.
i've had a ply with haircuts 100-400 before. was more just looking at the reach etc and not really a proper shoot session. i can say it's high on the list.
but the 200mm prime is 1/3rd of the cost brand new and has better image quality plus a lower stop when in 200mm mode etc.
i've done a lot of research and it is looking more and more appealing. it's one of those keeper lenses from what i can tell.
so have you got a 200mm f2.8 prime for sale? i thought you were selling your 70-200 zoom?
edit..... most of my shooting is hand held. i've started using the monopod but do find it a little restricting at this stage.
double edit.... the 100-400 doesn't loose value so 2nd hand they are still up around $15-1600
Just took thsi today on 20D and 70-200L
Nothing special, but it shows a nice sharp image, with a nice bokeh of a small subject at about 30-40m.
to be realistic - unless we post 100% crops of images, we aren't going to see the real quality (or maybe lack of) of the lenses when posting these samples.
A close up of someones eyes at max and minimum focal lengths, wide open and at f5.6-ish using a flash would give you a nice honest example. i will ask my neighbour if i can use her eyes
so u can have some 100% samples
gestalt - i'm pretty confident that the 200 2.8 with a 1.4x will be about the same sharpness as the centre image of your current zoom, but where the 200 will excel will be at the edges and in the corners, and probably less distortion and CA
unless warned beforehand, many folk are surprised at how much even the name brand teleconverters can deteriorate the image
yeah, i'm expecting some degradation with the tele. i really want to test it and see though. if it doesn't do the job i'll keep the 70-300 for windsurfing and use the 200mm for use without the converter. I'm sure it will get a lot of use. especially with the familly, i like to stand back and get portrait shots at parties and the park so they are not really aware i'm doing it.
the other thing, i'm chasing faster lenses. not necessary so much for the windsurfing but for most other stuff i keep wishing i had another stop or 2.
more so for blurred backgrounds where f4 doesn't cut it and for shots when the light is failing a little.
one issue i have with the 70-300mm is that it hunts. sometimes for quite a while. also every 2nd shot of a burst is out of focus or soft if the light is not really good.
when the light is good it's no problem. comparing your images from the 100-400 they are worlds apart from what the 70-300 does. i've also got a mate that has recently upgraded to L lenses and the improvements is unreal.
it's time i started to look at getting some decent glass. i've had my setup for 2+ years now.......
LIke this....
100mm macro, just messing around.
This is a squint shot, showing the murderers vehicle in the eye.
Mt Warning in the background, and we got matched the sunset to time of death.
(Sorry, too much Bones !!)
was wondering what the thought is on the iso test on digtal-picture.com?
looking at the comparisons of my current lens.
even the 200mm prime with 2x extender (400mm) leaves the my current 70-300 for dead (at 300mm) across the whole frame
compared to the 100-400 L f/8 they are almost the same. the 100-400 is sharper but the prime with 2x extender is better in the corners.
that's a very good wrap for a cost effective setup.
Is that like the MTF chart you are referring to ?
Don't forget we still have a 2x extender for sale if you want to go that way.
If there is wind, I'll come to the WW thingie, and bring wife and her gear.
Hi Ken,
I'd never looked at the MTF charts before. can't say i understand them but the 100-400 is a clear leader. will talk if i get the 200mm about the extender. if i get one (when i find a cheap one) i'll definately pair it with an extender of some description.
Hi Haircut,
you could be right. it does seem to be a canon orientated site. and yes i don't use f8. most likely one of the reasons i'm not getting good performance out of my current lens as f8 seems to be it's better aperture at 300mm.
the comparison clearly shows the 100-400 being sharper in the centre and mid area. it's in the edges where the 200 with 2x is better. the area that gets cropped out in editting. 
the 100-400 seems to have better contrast also.
i guess it's swings and round abouts. with a 1.4x converter (280mm) the 200mm seems nearly equal to the 100-400 at the same length and has a couple of stops up it's sleeve being f4 compared to the 5.6 of the 100-400.
also on the site he does say that some lenses perform poorly at the iso test and do very well in real life and vice versa.
anyways, if i had the dosh i'd get the 100-400. it is a cracker of a lens. if i could find one for under $1000 i'd get it.
reality is it's most likely out of my reach cost wise.
the 70-300 did the job but now i want something better and the 200mm outperforms it right across the board even with tele converters plus i get a superb 200mm prime better than 200mm on the 70-200 L lenses.
what worries me a little with the prime is the lack of zoom. places like redcliffe where the sailor is heading toward me will be difficult to compose.
forgot to say also, i got the hoya hd cpl after getting back from burrum. have done a few very basic metering tests in manual mode and i seem to only loose about 0.5 stop
i'm pretty happy with it. not only does it let max light through it's tuff as for the beach.
the 100-400 seems to have better contrast also.
^ yeah the prime is a 2.8 lens so with the 1.4x tele it's f4.
keeping my options open still. looking at a lot of different lenses verse price.
so i worked out my list of lenses and been hunting the buy and sell / ebay adds.
what a bunch of numpties exist in todays world. people sell **** on ebay 2nd hand for the same price as it is new?????? go figure.
what's even worse is occasionally some dick buys something 2nd hand on ebay for more than retail and they buy the old version to boot.....
i don't get it.
today a 2nd hand cpu i wanted to bid on sold for the same price as a new one. who does that?
so,
if anyone has any of the following 2nd hand lenses and wants to sell them for a "reasonable" price then pleasde pm me.
you would probably be better selling them on ebay but supporting my windsurfing photography habit is a good cause.
i am chasing
canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM
canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
canon EF 28-70mm F2.8 L USM or EF 24-70 F2.8L USM
tokina 11-16mm
I feel your pain.
I think part of that problem, is that it's only recently that lens prices have come down a bit.
When we bought our 70-200L about 6 yr ago, the retail was $4K and they were only available through a Canon Pro dealer, which were few and far between. I imagine that the same applied to all L lenses.
We ended up getting a grey import lens through an ebay guy called digitalrev for the bargain price of $2800.
Fast forward to today and as a run-out, the price got as low as $2300 new, or there about, though often those prices apply to gear in Hong Kong, and you still have postage and GST to pay. THe new one is $3000-$3300
So, a lot of people who might be selling are calculating the price against what they paid, or what they perceive replacement value to be. The net has changed all the old rules, but this gear is still premium.
The consolation is that these lenses have a long life and retain their value very well.
Before we decided to keep it, we had offers of $1500 for our 70-200, which is over 50% of new. Not bad for electronics gear after 6 yrs.
i think for 2nd hand 50-60% is fine. i'm not begrudging people trying to get back some of their outlay. i'm just annoyed that there is no cheaper 2nd hand market. 
it's the bidders that are nuts. they are buying 2nd hand gear that starts with no reserve for the price of new stuff. that's crazy.
i figure if people can use the internet to get onto ebay then they can search for cheap gear from retailers also.
for eg, there is a 50mm f1.4 lens 2nd hand currently at $405 with 1 day to go. i can buy the same lens from dd photographic in brisbane (who are the cheapest) for $475 new with a 12 month waranty.
that's only 1 example. peope are buying 70-200mm f4 usm lenses for $800-$900 when new they are $965
the 200mm lens i'm chasing is new at dd for $995. it's the version 2 lens. i've seen the version 1 lens go for the same price 2nd hand. 
anyways, 300mm is packed for today.
Remember that for some lenses the old versions are more sought after than the new.
The old full metal nifty fifty for example commands a premium on the 2nd hand market as you can't get them anywhere.
the 24-70 is near impossible to find 2nd hand, I got mind from Cameras Direct. And 70-200 F2.8 IS seems to be the same, or goes for top price. Thats what happens when you have something so sought after. There is of course 1 advantage to buying 2nd hand glass, you can see the output before you buy.
^ you're right there jamie.
time is on my side in the end as i already have 2 lenses that cover 17-300mm so i'll just keep waiting.
with the new 70-200 is usm 2 out the f4 versions are now being ditched by the retailers so i might look in that direction also.
^ hi ken,
yep the ebay tight arse. i found before that people have this virtual $1000 thing. especially with audio gear. stuff under $1000 seems to almost go for it's replacement price whereas stuff over $1000 seems to have less interest and you can pick up some real bargain. i once bought a $15000 soundcraft mixing desk for $2000
at the closing bid of $2650, that's probably what i'd have expected to pay for a s/h one of those. I don't think anyone got a bargain in the end but it sure looked good in the beginning
