The Beaten to Death IS vs. Non-IS debate

[Ricky21]

So, I know this has probably come up several times in the past and there have been many articles and opinions on the subject, but I wanted to get some real-world photographer experience opinions.

I'm looking at purchasing the Canon F/2.8 70-200mm lens. I know of course it comes in the IS and non-IS versions. I like the price of the Non-IS version a lot better, so I'm leaning towards that one.

I know it comes down to application and the kind of enviornment one is shooting in, etc. I would say that I would be using the lens mostly outdoors, at say the zoo or a kid's ball game, or inside in well it conditions.

Does the step-up in price, (currently about $700) on Amazon), justify the need for the IS version?

I don't want to be that guy who could have saved a little more to get a lens that would be hands down better if it makes that big of incremental difference.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this please.

 

[fsquare]

For the way you plan to use it the non-IS version is fine. If this was me, i'd save up the extra $700 or buy the IS version used. You just never know when you might need it and i got a shaky hand so it comes in useful.

 

[CMfromIL]

I bought the IS version off of newegg.com. Got a great price, and am very, very happy with it. I considered the Non-IS version, but after talking with Canon about it, opted for the pricer version.

 

[KmH]

It also comes down to your camera handeling skills. For shooting action sports with that lens the camera/lens should really be on a monopod, IS or not, if it's the longest lens you have.

If a lens will be used at shutter speeds faster than about 1/250 image stabilization should be turned off anyway.

Don't be fooled inside. The camera doesn't work like your eyes do, so what looks well lit to you is not well lit to the camera.