>Sure IS is a great thing in Video cameras so that the playback is stable. >No one wants to see video image dancing around the screen. For still >photography however it is a clever marketing gimmick and nothing more. >Let me try to make this clear and simple. I don't need a tripod either >when I am shooting with am f 2.8 lense and don't have to compromise >sharpness either. But there still remains the issue of weight and cost. A 300/2.8 is 3 times the cost of the 300/4L IS, and 3 times the weight. In most situations I'll be glad to sacrafice a little sharpness and a little DOF for a lens I can actually afford, carry, and shoot hand-held with (in lower light levels than possible with the 300/2.8). And can you shoot hand-held with the 400/2.8? Probably not nearly as well as you can with the 300/4 and 1.4 teleconverter.
