BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cab1024" data-source="post: 1532296" data-attributes="member: 25012">Ironically, I was up til 3am last night comparing my 100-400 to the 70-200 f/2.8 WITHOUT IS that I borrowed from a friend yesterday. OK, and without the 1.4x. And I was mainly comparing bokeh. (The buttery bokeh of the 2.8 is making me even more desirous of the 50mm f/1.4)But one thing I learned immediately -- 12 years old or not -- I got very useable handheld shots in a dim living room at 400mm with the IS on, and got nothing steady from the 200 2.8 w/o IS. So, other than the 50mm, I doubt I'll ever choose the non-IS version of anything. I simply find myself in low light situations far too frequently to go without it. So more money will have to be saved for future purchases...(I used a tripod for my primary comparisons, BTW.)</blockquote>