IMHO, you're giving too much credit to IS. It is much easier to handhold a 85mm than a 250mm in a stable fashion.
What would it hurt to set the shutter speed higher? Is there any negative to leaving it at 1000 if I'm taking pictures of my fish or any wildlife that might be moving. Does it hurt if it's a still shot?
...
I would take some images with just the lens, no attachments, on a tripod and see what you get.
...
There almost appears to be a blurry a vignette in you images and I have no idea what would cause that...
I had some issues once...
I agree Ken, but I do weigh IS pretty heavily. Sure, handheld at 85mm is easier to pull off then handheld at 250mm's. No doubt. However, looking at apples to apples (same focal length) with the newest version of IS I can handhold my 500mm at shutter speeds I should never be able to it. It makes a huge difference (for me at least). Look at some of Art Morris stuff (Birds as art). He regularly hand holds 600mm lenses and has lots to say about IS. At the end of the day go for as much shutter speed as you can using your ISO and F stops. After that, I think you can count on IS to add quite a bit of extra latitude. At least that's been my experience. Actually I use IS even when I'm on the tripod (with the super telephotos). The magnification is just so great (esp with the 1.4 tele) the IS helps. I actually sold my 70-200mm F4 non IS lens to upgrade to the IS version a few years ago. No regrets about that decision at all.
Louis, you are a very fortunate man to have only had issues once.
Thank you for the input. I've been in the habit of putting longer lenses on a tripod for quite some time. I did shoot a hundred or so handheld shots in Montana last month with my 70-200 f2.8 II which has IS. I attributed the lack of blur to using a faster shutterspeed (1/250th) and the amazing sharpness of the lens. IS may have helped more than I thought. I can't imagine handholding a 600mm. I drink a lot of coffee.
Nice test showing your backfocus issue, BTW.
I know the magnification of the swan won't be near as good as it was with the 2.2x adapter lens.
Now BIG question, just exactly how much will my distance pictures improve if I get the same lens accept it will be 75-300mm. Is the difference worth buying another lens for only a 50mm gain or should I save my pennies and go for a 400-600 one instead?
Louis, impressive sharpness handholding the 500 at 1/45th. Wow.
Dave, sorry to hear about your back issues. They sound very painful and costly. My sympathies and best of luck.
A teleconverter will give you better reach with less loss of visual quality than the lens attachment. With my 1.4x, my 400mm becomes a 560mm. One sacrifices a bit of light, say 1/2 to 1 stop. It goes between the lens and the body instead of at the end of the lens.
AK is beautiful. I had the pleasure of visiting once for a couple weeks when I was much younger and it made a wonderful impression. I would love to catch me a barn door.
Isn't the Canon Promaster 1.7 Spectrum-7 autofocus lens Tele-converter made by Canon, or a third party that is making it for Canon?
I've got a great PT that I've been going to for a few years now and she's great. I'm not sure if she does what you're talking about or not, I'll have to mention this to her when I see her on Wed.