Lately I brought up the existence of the 70-200 F4L while on an aviation photography outing. Mentioning the price, I was asked why I didn't purchase the lens instead of the "general purpose" 17-50 VC (which I've now come to see as a specialist lens). I brought up how I needed a low light solution. That may be done away with via the acquisition of primes and a wide angle. The 17-50 isn't leaving though because I still need a museum lens.
70-200 F4L (and later with a 1.4 TC) looks like a solid proposition. I use my 55-250 fairly regularly and will end up keeping it for telephoto work when IS is needed. I'm left wondering specifically on this lens, is the lack of IS going to hurt? Aviation, transport, and zoo photography will be the main uses, not much of which happens at night. About as low light as I am going to get would likely be at the elephant pen at the zoo. Most of my aviation photography takes place around f/11 with shutter speeds rarely dipping below 1/250 at around IS 200-400.
Also, because of price, I'm assuming that the non-IS version is more common in the wild among non-pro photogs? Is it worth the 650 or so USD or will the 55-250 STM fit the bill a little better?
Thanks in advance for all replies!