70-200 f/4 IS vs non-IS

[thestereoeffect]

Ok. So I took the leap up to FF with a 5D Mark III, and haven't looked back. The difference is staggering. I've decided this focus length will be my next zoom as I already have the wonderful 24-70, and don't want the extra weight of the 2.8.

My local Craigslist has ads for both the IS and non-IS versions of the f/4, for $500 & $950, respectively. My question is, which would you choose?

 

[thestereoeffect]

Pardon; that should read the other way around for prices, obviously.

 

[Funnpun]

Depends on how steady your hands are at low shutter speeds. Also, 200mm without IS may be a problem, but it weighs half of the 70-200mm f/2.8 (54g)

 

[TheBiles]

Not only do you get IS, but the IS version is ridiculously sharp--nearly as sharp as the 2.8 IS II.

 

[thestereoeffect]

Then $950 out of the pocket it is. Thanks!

 

[3bayjunkie]

Then $950 out of the pocket it is. Thanks!

For $1000 you can get a 70-200mm f/2.8 non is. That is what I am getting. But I also shoot a lot of low light situations so I need it.

 

[LShooter]

IS is always the best way to go if you can afford it. You'll end up selling any non IS lens for a loss in the long run just to get an IS version. I have the Mk III and love it. I went in to my local store to buy the f/4 IS the other day and walked out with the 2.8 IS II! More expensive? Yes. But way better, holds it value unlike the f/4 hence why you find them on CS for cheaper all the time, etc. The weight is really not a deal. You get use to it and have you have a Black Rapid strap or other quality strap you won't notice it. If you shoot low light or action, you'll wish you'd have gone with the 2.8 Save your pennies, sell a kidney, but get a 2.8