As an update, I just got around to sending this lens to the Canon repair center in N.J. Just got the estimate for repair including replacement of the IS module, return shipping, and tax...$461.95.
I expect the lens to be shipped within 7 days, however, history would predict they will be quicker than that. My experience is that they are fast and thorough. I consider the price to be reasonable to re-enable a lens that would cost about $2500 to replace. I highly recommend going to the guys who do it right.

I find many printers are specing PDF files for photos today. Other specs requested by printers include conversion to CMYK format. All of these requirements can easily be met using Photoshop. If you are going to get paid for your work, you have to deliver the product in the form requested. The printer is the customer and they have their reasons for these requests.

I have to agree with your suggestion that the new user would benefit from starting with Photoshop Elements. I have recommended that to many in the past. PSE to PSCC makes good sense to me. I began using PS with version 2.5 back in the very early 1990's. I have since progressed through every update from that time on. Perhaps my opinion is skewed by my having had the benefit of a very gradual and consistent exposure to PS from its early stages to the present. I do think PSE might provide a less stressful introduction before going to PSCC. Thanks for the reminder.

We must agree to disagree then. I have tried to learn LR on a few occasions and failed to get it. My business doesn't seem to have suffered and I think my time was better used focusing on PS. That said I'm willing to accept that I might just be too old, dumb, and lacking in sophistication to grasp the benefits of what seems to me to be a redundant program containing cumbersome features, like the catalog, that I think creates more problems than it solves. Thus, I prefer to recommend that which has the most to offer. LR has a lot of followers, so it's possible I'm in error.

I would only note that my comment was a direct reply to Galaxycat's statement that she felt she had to start editing somewhere and the replies to her OP seemed complicated. IMO starting with PS is the most straight forward approach to PP. I think LR would add unnecessary complication for someone wanting to get into PP of images.

IMHO you need to get Photoshop and take some tutorials for beginners on Youtube or from the many other sources. The learning curve can be a bit long but worth the effort. You will NEVER learn everything about PS, but since you can do essentially anything you need to do to your images using PS and the included Adobe Camera Raw and file manager called Bridge, IMO you have no need to complicate your life with Lightroom. You only have to observe the number of pleas for help with Lightroom on this forum to realize that it is way more trouble than it is worth. Focus on learning PS and you will be one happy photographer.

Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I guess I'll give it a try and see what happens. ejrmaine, what you are suggesting is that I click the box that indicates the current version will be retained when the new one is installed. Otherwise, the old one would be removed and i couldn't reference the older version to copy the plugins. bsptrague...just for clarification, when I installed CC for the first time, there was no choice of installing LR or not. They both were installed without letting me choose. Adobe may have later included the option, but I didn't have it. That's why I suspected that they might be linked and removing one might affect the other. I'll happily remove what I consider to be a useless and unnecessarily complex and redundant piece of software. I realize that others like using LR and that's fine. I take issue with the complexity and the many issues that confuse users...witness the overwhelming number of requests for help on this forum. For me, Bridge provides the search and sorting features I need. LR simply doesn't provide the straight ahead cataloging assistance they were originally described to have. Again, thanks for your help.

Joel,
Thanks for your reply. I expect my experience will be similar. I appreciate your taking the time to fill me in.

Alright, I must admit to growing fear whenever I am told there is ANOTHER Photoshop CC update. Comments about the recent one lead me to believe that nothing in the way of plugins will be retained in the new update. If that is true, I will have to first find my plugin installation files and their associated license keys AGAIN. Then I'll have to hope that they reinstall properly without forcing me to contact the individual companies from which I purchased them in the distant past. I don't mind the updates that are installed in the background, making various changes to the program that don't require my participation. These major updates could be a lot more palatable if Adobe would just write their updates to include existing plugins, but oh no and alas...tis not to be I fear.

Yes there is a question here. Can any members tell me if I am correct in assuming that, if I update Photoshop CC, I will be forced to reinstall the plugins that currently reside in my existing version? Personally I don't care about Lightroom, since I do not use it. I do hope, however, that I won't be forced to go through the brain damage of updating LR as well. Will they let me leave the existing version as it is? I would prefer to completely remove it completely (LR that is), but I'm not sure that doing that won't screw up the Photoshop CC program, since they forced me to install LR when I first installed PS CC...are they dependent on each other to be present together? The plugins I'm currently using include Adobe Camera Raw, Imagenomic plugins (Noiseware Pro), Portrait Pro and associated plugins, and On1 - 10.

Thanks in advance for any advice members might have before I go blindly into the black hole of update space.

IMHO your question is much like asking if you should buy a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry. The reason for your indecision is that both cameras do essentially the same thing. They can take great pictures if you learn how to use them. I have a 5DMk4 and I'm very happy with it. If I was a Nikon user I no doubt would say the same thing about the D850.

My sincere thanks to all three of you who responded so far. RMorrison, you seem to have nailed the solution and I will definitely contact Canon for a repair authorization. About a year ago I sent in my 24-105 with what was described as a "common problem" involving a ribbon cable that apparently would wear through and had to be replaced for about $350. Again, it was a well used lens with some whiskers on it. It's back and performing perfectly once again. I suspect this will be a similar outcome. While $650 sounds a bit rich, one has to take into consideration the cost of a new one and then it doesn't sound quite so bad.

LFingar, I too have had nothing but excellent service from the NJ Canon facility. While I have been fortunate not to have frequent need of their services, they have responded well when the need did arise. Thanks for your input.

Now, Sharpshooter...yours is certainly the most creative response and I must admit you have provided some levity in what otherwise is a bit of a downer. I would agree that the 5D4 could be described as a sexy camera. The 7DII is at least foxy enough to stimulate some emotion, and the 5Ds is nothing but satisfying as well. In any case, at my age, I would not have come up with your analogy right away, but I do seem to remember that such an experience could be at least overwhelming and ultimately fatal at worst. Thanks for the hearty laugh...I needed that!

I recently mounted my aging Canon 28-300 L lens on my 5D Mk4 camera. Camera mode was Manual and lens set to AF, Stabilizer ON, Stabilizer Mode 1. I extended the lens to about 200mm and pushed the shutter trigger half-way down to activate AF. In the viewfinder I could see the image vibrating radically and it wouldn't stop until I let go of the trigger. I first thought that my 5D4 was malfunctioning and the sensor cleaning cycle was somehow activated. I put the lens on my 7DII and it did the same thing. On my 5Ds...the same thing. I concluded it wasn't the camera, but rather the lens. Changing to Manual Focus did not help. Finally, I switched the Stabilizer to OFF and the vibration ceased. Keep in mind it only vibrates when the trigger is half-way down...and, you can trigger the shutter during this action. See attached image. The vibration seems to be in a lateral direction. I have not tested in Stabilizer Mode 2 to see if the axis changes to vertical. My question is...have any Hogs ever seen this happen, and if so, what did you do? Sending it to Canon is probably the necessary next step, but I would appreciate hearing from anyone who may have experienced this problem before. I'm of course guessing that it has to do with the stabilizer feature. I did clean the contacts of the lens but maybe a more thorough cleaning is necessary?

(Download)

Exactly what I was thinkin'....

You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but I think they were telling people in Florida for at least a week that Irma was going to come ashore as a category 4 or 5 storm. Last I heard it is now a Cat 4. In reality the choice would have been to leave when the Interstates were still moving smoothly, the gas stations still had fuel and the stores still had supplies. By leaving, you would have insured availability of food and potable water until the storm had past. It's not like the first rodeo for people down there.
They have seen hurricanes hit Florida before, and the memory of Harvey in Texas should have served as a heads up. I believe the mayor of Miami was quoted as saying that they don't need heroes...they just need people to have sense enough to leave while they can. Now may be too late. No hospital services, no 911 services active in many places, and no airports open. In the Keys they said point blank that if you stay you're on your own...no one is coming to get you. So, let's stay and take pictures? I don't know how people get to that conclusion. Just sayin'.

I have a simple request. If you insist on using TLA's (three letter acronyms), please define them the first time you use them.
I'm retired now, but during my working days meetings were frustratingly full of TLA's and only a fraction of the attendees actually knew what was being said. Spell it out once so we know what you are saying. At least half of the people reading your post will appreciate it, I assure you.