Advice on a lens please.
 

I thinking of buying a 'L' lens to use with my 350D but not sure which one to get,

1.EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2.EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM
3.EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

Have any of you guys got one of the above lenses also if i go for the 70-200 f/2.8 is it worth the extra ££££'s to go for the 'IS' model.

I think the IS is the same thing as the VR on my Nikon lens? and in my opinion is worth the extra few quid. as for the actual lens, it depends on your bank balance and what you want, as there is a fair difference between the 1st and 2nd lenses :)

one for the Canon users :)

I'm also a Nikon user, so don't have any experience with the Canon lenses you mention. I find VR (the equivalent of IS) to be worth the extra cost, particularly if you going to be hand-holding longer lenses like these.

As suggested above, I'd say you need to consider what sort of shooting you'll be doing with the lens, since there is quite a difference between 70-200mm and 100-400mm. Are you going to have more need for the faster aperture of the 70-200mm f/2.8, or the "reach" of the 100-400mm?

One other thing - as far as I know there isn't currently a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (without IS) - do you mean the 70-200mm f/4L USM?

I have a Canon EF 75-300 F/4-5.6 111 USM lens on my 20D, but I do regret not getting the ‘IS’ version. ColinB has the ‘IS’ on his 30D and consistently produces’ excellent shots hand held with it!

As said above, if you can afford the IS version, do so. The results are sharper especially when hand held.

Just to add further to the above, go for the IS variant if you can afford it.

Having just returned to serious photography I was sceptical about the benefits of IS but once having tried it I'll never be without it now if I can possibly avoid it.

You can actually SEE the image become rock steady through the view-finder, as you half press the shutter release.

The 100-400 IS USM L series is my personal 'holy grail' ;)

If you are in the vicinity of Wolverhampton and you want to see IS in action on a series of lenses upto 75-300, by all means call in and have a play (and a cuppa).

Thanks for the offer Paul but i now live just outside Cambridge.
As i mainly shoot motorsport and airshows that is pulling me to the 100-400L but i am also thinking that i could get the 70-200 f/2.8L and use an 1.4x or 2.0x extender for when i needed that extra reach.

Dear god in heaven ...NOOOOOOOOO.

Even Canon's own extenders degrade the quality to, IMO, an unacceptable degree.

Please get the 100 - 400. I'll swap you for my 'Bigma' then ;)

I have the 70-200 f2.8 none IS. I don't know what I am missing, but my wallet still has £500 in it and my camera still takes pictures that amaze me.

Reputedly the none IS has better IQ than the IS version, the IS version weighs more and costs almost twice as much. IS stabilises a static image, just as well as a tripod, a wall, a tree or any other solid object you can find. If the image is moving IS just sucks battery juice.

Photography coped very well for 150 years without IS, and still managed some pretty impressive images. If you can afford IS enjoy it, if not just work on your technique - it isn't the equipment that produces a good picture it is the person pointing it!

Edit: I use the Canon 1.4 extender, and other than loosing a stop of light I question anyone to spot a degredation in quality.

I should comment that IS does not make a moving subject stop. The Image Stabilization is designed to prevent camera shake only. It has been proven to help make hand-held photos at up to 3-stops slower than without IS. This means that you can shoot holding your camera in much darker situations with an IS lens compared to a non-IS lens where you might be needing a tripod to prevent camera shake from blurring your images.

I'm not saying that you didn't know this David, but it is sometimes misconstrued to mean such.