Is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM worth the extra $600+ dollars over the same lens without IS?

It's worth every penny if you want to use it handheld in low light. It's probably not worth it if you use a tripod most of the time.

I concur. I had the NON IS and loved it. But then I started shooting both in bright day and then later in the afternoon. I started to say "wish I had IS". I will probably get the IS, when I start to get my equipment back. If my shooting requirements had not changed, I would stay with the NON IS, saving a few hundred dollars

If you opt to have the tripod with you all the time IS is not rquired. Between my pod and IS I will "usually" go with IS...

I currently own both the Non-IS and IS versions of this lense. I prefer the Non-IS when shooting sports at high shutter speeds, especially with baseball & football. The lense has fantastic IQ and is actually better then the IS version in this situation. I use my IS version for travel and when shooting non-action shots in low light, this lense excels in these applications. The choice really depends on your style of shooting, both are exceptional lenses.

Agreed that the non IS has a slightly better IQ. I switched back to the non IS after a short try.
IS can be very helpful handheld though...

Ron Cully wrote:
Is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM worth the extra $600+ dollars over the same lens without IS?

Yes, every penny.

Wouldn't a better debate now be between f4 IS and 2.8 IS? The f4 IS is only $150-200 more new than a decent 2.8 non-IS used, and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. On the other hand, it's easy to come up with quite a long list of advantages of the 4 IS over the 2.8 non.

I have IS on my 24-105 and its awesome for still objects but if you are shooting in low light and a person or object moves IS doesn't really help at all you still get blur. If you object or person will be moving still with non-IS and high ISO.

jdben622 wrote:
and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS.

2.8 non IS is a f2.8 lens, 4IS is just f4. It is a big advantage when shooting sports and/or bluring background is your priority.

jdben622 wrote:
Wouldn't a better debate now be between f4 IS and 2.8 IS? The f4 IS is only $150-200 more new than a decent 2.8 non-IS used, and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. On the other hand, it's easy to come up with quite a long list of advantages of the 4 IS over the 2.8 non.

The EF 70-200 f/2.8L can be used for fast action sports - the f/4 IS version doesnīt do the job here. A VERY essential advantage. Thatīs simply, why f/4 IS is out of question for me. Another advantage is a more precise focusing on Canon 400D / 20D or higher (double amount of light for AF)

Ditto - worth every penny out at 200mm IMO.

FWIW...I messed around with an IS 300 f/4 this summer and was not impressed....seems like IS is highly overrated for everyday shooting.
JMHO....

Joe P

I love mine with IS - It's worth every penny for me. 70-200 is a tough range to handhold for me.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself what's best for you... I'd try shooting a non-IS at a shop and see what you think.

This question has been asked numerous times, but I have not seen anyone mention the following, so here you go:

It also depend on whether you want to use the lense with a 1.4X TC; if you are and are using it with a 1-series camera, go with the 70-200 2.8 IS. Direct quote from the Canon 1D MKII N Instruction Manual:

With the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens (without IS) attached with Extender EF 1.4x or EF 1.4x II, the center AF point will work as a cross-type sensor. Do not use autofocus with the other AF points because they may cause a focusing error.

It's the same with all other 1-series cameras, but I am not sure about the recent announced 1D MK III.

Hope this helps a little

Go with the IS. I had the same question before I bought mine a couple of weeks ago. I don't think I've had a bad shot yet even with a 2x TC at 400mm I can still hand hold at low shutter speeds.

I did the upgrade when the IS model came out and have no regrets. I use it a lot handheld in low light and it's very useful.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm missing something. With the 2.8 in IS you theoretically get 3 more stops whereas the 4.0 IS gives you 4. If IS is employed, won't the available/useable ISO's and shutter speeds be the same for both lenses? I've used all three lenses, but don't have them all now and have had the 4.0 IS for less than a week. However, I'm not seeing how the 2.8 and 4.0 are not equal with IS utilized. If IS is not utilized, then of course a speed advantage goes to the 2.8. But if the OP is considering the 2.8 IS, then I don't know why the 4.0 IS isn't an option. Hand-held, it's a much easier lens to carry.

If IS is not an option for the type of shot, then often even 2.8 is not fast enough, and a 135/2 or 200/1.8 would be used if they were available and provided enough reach.

RE: throwing out the background, the 4 IS does a wonderful job and produces a nice, creamy bokeh. I'm enamored with dreamy backgrounds and have enjoyed using the 85/1.2, 135/2, and 200/1.8...all lenses that are renowned for their backgrounds. I'm not sure if the perceived bokeh from the 2.8 is significantly shallower than the 4.

The T/C is a good point I hadn't thought of as well as the overall AF speed in low light.

IS is an awesome tool to have when needed. As the 70~200mm is such a versatile lens, IMO having IS is mandatory.

Stanj - How is the focussing in low light?