So, what I\'m hearing is that IS Is worth it if I can afford it, but if not, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is non-IS is still a better option than the Tamron 70-300 VC? Right now I just can\'t swing the extra money for the IS version and probably won\'t have the cash anytime soon. Right now I have $700 cash in hand and it looks like the used IS versions are around $800....if I\'m lucky, slightly under that. The non-IS version is on sale right now on Amazon, new, for $559. At that price I could afford that and a used 430ex flash. So, I could always use the flash if I using it indoors. The Tamron 70-300 VC is $450 new with a $100 rebate, making it $350.
Most of the time I use the 70-300, I\'ll be outside in decent lighting shooting moving subjects....my kids I suppose I could buy it from Amazon and if I find not having IS is a problem, I could always return it...something I couldn\'t do if I buy used for $500.
Jan 05, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Previous versions of taylorman22's message #11243981 « non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC? »
I suppose I could buy it from Amazon and if I find not having IS is a problem, I could always return it...something I couldn\'t do if I buy used for $500.