need assistance with a lens choice.

I have had my 70-200 2.8 non is for a long time. Love the lens, love the pictures that it can produce. I was offered the 2.8 IS for a really good price plus a trade in of my old 70 - 200 non is. I Will end up paying like $100. Should I pull the trigger and go for the IS? 2.8 ii is out of my price range and dont want to spend that much on that bad boy!

I am a serious hobbyist shooting everything, low light, action, portraits... etc. I especially love the candid shots.

What do you think?

Make the trade if you need the IS. If you haven't been limited by the lack of IS, keep your current lens. The IS will help with slow shutter speeds and no tripod. Test the IS lens for sharpness, the non-IS has a reputation as being sharper than the mk-1 IS lens. Indivdiual lens variation needs to be taken into account. Sounds like a tough call...

I have read that the non is is sharper in most cases. I hand hold a lot so I think that will help (IS). I barely use my tripod. It is a tough one!

I am going to be buying one from a fellow member. Will see how it goes! I figure if it doesnt work out I can sell.

I would not be without IS in a lens of this focal length. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens everywhere and in all sorts of lighting conditions. I can hand hold the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens in lower light than I could hand-hold a 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS.

Unless you feel that f/2.8 is absolutely necessary, the f/4L IS lens is a great value, sharp as a tack, relatively lightweight and produces creamy smooth bokeh.

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/Pets/Holly-Doodle/i-fzCffTf/A

I think i am going to go with the IS. Its a great feature. The inly thing that worries me is how people are saying that it is not as sharp as the non is model. But i guess that depends on the copy you get (edit): and technique.

IS really helps. I can take sharp pictures with my 24-105 at 1/40 with no problem. I cannot do that well with my 35L at 1/40.

I wouldn't worry about sharpness, they are relatively close. Yes, it does seem there are copy to copy variations. In general many say the non-IS is sharper, but IMO it is pretty close and often varies from focal length of the zooms - closer at the longer FLs.

Here is a comparison of them. Put the mouse on the image switches to the other lens. You can vary the FL and aperture.

I'd personally would rather have IS.

jimewall wrote in post #16708978
I wouldn't worry about sharpness, they are relatively close. Yes, it does seem there are copy to copy variations. In general many say the non-IS is sharper, but IMO it is pretty close and often varies from focal length of the zooms - closer at the longer FLs.

Here is a comparison of them. Put the mouse on the image switches to the other lens. You can vary the FL and aperture.

I'd personally would rather have IS.

Thanx!

milleniumking wrote in post #16707579
I have had my 70-200 2.8 non is for a long time. Love the lens, love the pictures that it can produce. I was offered the 2.8 IS for a really good price plus a trade in of my old 70 - 200 non is. I Will end up paying like $100. Should I pull the trigger and go for the IS? 2.8 ii is out of my price range and dont want to spend that much on that bad boy!

I am a serious hobbyist shooting everything, low light, action, portraits... etc. I especially love the candid shots.

What do you think?

$100 net change up, to gain IS on a 70-200 F2.8?

Not even a question. Do it.

Very best,