The value of IS with 70-200 lenses

Well, I just (tenitavely) sold my 70-200mm f2.8 Non-IS for the Mark II IS lens after using the mark 1 this weekend. Its important to have it.

NewHorizonPhoto wrote in post #12885496
My apologize. I do intend to attempt to contribute in these forums in a helpful way and not simply link spam. Sorry it was taken that way. Also, I made no claim that a 55-250 F 4- F 5.6 was a pro grade lens. I was simply commenting that I noticed a clear difference in the quality of image produced likely due to the addition of image stabilization. In my opinion the image stabilization is worth the added cost, pro or consumer.

Yeah I don't see why they had to call you out on that. Regardless of what classification the lens has, IS will always benefit it. Sorry they attacked you in this situation considering you're so new to the forums. I would be ashamed for them. (although I don't know what may have been deleted from your post since before I read it)

I'd pick the sigma OS over the canon non-IS any day. That is because one offers all the advantages of the other, plus OS, and still costs less/the same.

However, when IS causes the lens to double in price, to me, that is not worth it. I had the f4 IS version, decided it wasn't worth that much, returned it, got the non-IS, and I've been happy with it.