My first L lens, what should it be:70-200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L IS

I think the time has come for me to buy a 70-200, it was always going to be my first L, i thought having read the posts on here that it would be wise to skip the F4 version as people tend to sell it in the first year or so and upgrade to the 2.8 or 2.8IS, so i thought i would save a little more until i could afford the 2.8.
Now i can afford the 2.8 i find myself questioning whether i should plump for the IS. The fact that you all appear to own one has made me jealous, argh!!!

Now i know alot of you out there are wedding photographers, and the IS is part of the holy trinity, but if you rarely shoot indoors and if you have a 580ex to compensate being indoors, and you dont shoot weddings, is the £300 premium IS function really worth it? Does that make sense???

If you own the IS version, what occasions has the IS been worth its weight in gold? I would be grateful of any scenarios etc as to when you have benefitted from having this feature. O and sample images would help.
Do you always shoot with the IS switched on?

Any reply would be fantastic, even if its, stop wining the 2.8 is brilliant anyway!

Thanks guys.

If the IS version is in your budget, get it. It's really nice to have when shutter speeds start to drop.

I use the lens often for landscape and don't like lugging a tripod everywhere. With IS, the images still come out very sharp. Without IS, it would be much more difficult to handhold.

Sample pic from Yosemite I took last Saturday with the 70-200IS:
http://photos.imageeve​nt.com/kster/tiogapass​/img_0633.jpg

I own the IS version and it helps me out with weddings and low light sporting events. I have been succesful at hand-holding down to 1/8th of a second. See below

Wow look at that 2 people instantly urging me to spend more money. LOL
Thanks, any more comments to come?
How good is the IS function, i mean how low light are we talking here?
See the non IS i have seen for £700 in hong kong, but the IS is £1000, so i figure if i am to buy this its now when its £300 extra not an extra£1000 in a years time.
Also has anyone bought a lens from onestop digital before, ihave bought a flashgun but i think a lens is a more delicate purchase, especially given the number of miles that it will cover being delivered.
Thanks again guys.

low light as in the light of a torch if you look at the above picture. with the IS, i've done nighttime candids of people 30 feet from a lightpost. if that's what you like to do, go for it. IS is worth it's weight in gold, maybe even worth more than it's weight in gold, you need to check the gold futures to be sure though

the fire dancing shot is very low light, and taking it at 1/8th would not be possible and sharp without IS

The IS seems useful to me. I would say it improves at least 25% of my shots, the rest are daylight / sports shots that have a fast enough shutter speed not to matter.

You guys are killing me, thats an awesome shot and i have to confess that sort of capture is on my to do list i have messed around with similar things already, i know a fire dancer and she has offered to pose, hmmmm.
I was hoping someone with out an IS would have popped up but its the faithful IS crowd that are here lol.
Does anyone have any shots with and without IS or could they for me(without selling me the thing lol)- unbiased shots perhaps lol.
I guess that i can afford the IS, i did the same when i bought my 20d i originally went in for the 350d. It will just mean that i will have to wait that big longer for the 16-35L, but i dont need that if i have the 70-200IS to play with in the dark doi guys?

My go-to lens for wildlife is the 100-400L f4.5-5.6 IS, a far slower lens than you're looking at. For me, IS has been a total lifesaver. I've shot down to 1/30 with this lens with great success because of it, and the L zoom you're buying is, of course, much faster. General rule is, three full stops are gained through IS, and if you put it with a monopod, you've really got a stable system there. I'd be the whole 300 quid that, once you use IS, you're going to wonder how you did without it all this time.

As i said previously, if you consider spending that much money on a top end lens, then don't settle short and go all the way for the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Or else don't spend that much money and settle for the 70-200 4L or 70-300IS or Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

Going for the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS is like buying a top end Mercedes or Porsche and buying cheap Sears or Wal Mart brand tires...

Ok guys ok your wearing me down. Steve that is so weird i actually did look at the 100-400LIS, but i thought i would get more use out of the 70-200 over the winter. I would like to start shoot birds soon (thats pics not bullets for all you US rifle owners), lol. I dont think i would get many pics over winter, most of our birds go on holiday(migrate) well the pretty ones do atleast. Have you tried an extender on 100-400, does it degrade the pic quality?

One more q for all you lucky L owners, how do you find the range on a crop body? Thanks again.

You can add an extender to 70-200IS. and such lens (without the extender) will assurely be a better use overall. As matter of fact it's such a terrific portrait lens for inside and outside. a lot of pros use this lens, such as Playboy photographers (for magazine and channel). If i could afford it, i would buy it. I settle now for the 70-300IS which is also very good, but far less bright (not f2.8).

The 1.4 TC degrades IQ only very slightly, the 2 TC a good bit more. Unless you're shooting a "1" series body with the 100-400L, you won't be able to autofocus when using a Canon TC unless you tape off a couple of the pins (not sure which ones) to spoof the camera. I sold my 1.4 because, with the 20D, I can't autofocus with that lens and TC, and even if you tape the pins it focuses a lot more slowly, and for my nature work, slow focus can be VERY bad. The 20D will only autofocus with a Canon TC on lenses that open to f2.8 or wider, so you'll maintain autofocus capabilities if you put a TC on the lens you're buying.

If you shoot birds, you're definitely going to want 400mm at least. Since you'll already have zoom flexibility up to nearly 300mm (I'm assuming you're going to pick up a 1.4 TC for that 70-200; most do, and it's a great combo), you might look at the very affordable and sharp prime 400L f5.6, not the 100-400. It's no faster than the 100-400L IS at 400, but it is a prime, so it's a tad sharper (I like the sharpness fine on my 100-400, but primes are always sharper). You'll definitely need a good tripod with the 400, because it's not an IS lens, but at a bit over $1,000 U.S., it's the best value for a 400mm L prime. If you're comfortable with manual focus or you tape those pins, you can add that 1.4, though you'll lose a stop and be stuck at f8 for max aperature.

I believe in Canon TCs, but I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that Tamron TCs will allow the non "1" series bodies to use autofocus on slower lenses, because there's some data that non Canon TCs don't transmit to and from the body.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how do you find the range on a crop body." You find the apparent focal length by multiplying the lens focal length by 1.6 for the 20D, if that's what you mean. So the 70-200 would convert to roughly a 110-320mm. The 100-400mm converts to a 160-640mm, and that's often barely adequate for bird photography. If you take your soon-to-be owned 70-200, add the 1.4 TC and get to about 100-280mm, then multiply by 1.6, you get about 160-450mm.

OK thanks, i think out of greed i would go for the 2x converter, its the same money, and i understand they have updated the 2x now so the impact is less than its predecessor.
Woo i am now a normal member of this forum, no more junior. lol i need help.
Thanks for the advice, time to do some sums. If anyone else would like to comment please feel free to do so.

Just go for it. The 70-200 is a f/2.8 with IS zoom, and those two criteria in my opinion make it the ULTIMATE low light zoom. You can't get any better than that in a zoom. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is immensely significant for exactly the same reason. Damn it, I wish I had the money to own either.....