70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS

AeroSmith wrote in post #2082250
I bet you'd be fine with the non-IS version. If you really want to shoot indoors in low light I'd sugest a fast prime of some sort. So far, it seems like I keep the IS on my 70-200 turned off most of the time. I bought it over the non-IS version mainly for the weather sealing. But weather sealing isn't going to be an issue as your camera isn't weather sealed. With the money you save you could also buy an 85/1.8 or a 100/2, either of which would be awesome in low light.

I already have a fast prime. the 50 f/1.8. I'd like to get more at some point. The fast prime has made me realize how slow my zoom lenses are. That's why I'm considering getting one of the faster zooms.

begovics wrote in post #2083278
70-200mm 2.8L is really wonderful lens, but you own EF 70-300 already. that should be a decent lens and I don't think that you would see much difference in a "real life" photography between these two. If you really have urge to buy something, why not EF-S 10-22mm or 17-55mm 2.8 . That is the range you are missing. Especially because you do a different styles of photography. If you didn't have 70-300mm then I agree 70-200mm would be my first choice, because, personaly I find more fun in telephotography.

I want to have a faster lens than the ef 70-300mm. It's only f/4, so it works well in day light, but in the evening and indoors can be quite useless. I believe the f/2.8 is two stops faster (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I am considering other lenses specifically the EF-S 10-22mm, and the EF 24-105 f/4 L. In the end I'd like all three lenses because they give me good coverage and overlap from 10mm to 200mm range. Choosing between these lenses is more to do with where I want to go with photography and what kind of things I want to shoot. I think it's unfair to ask on this forum which of those three lenses I should get, and which order because of that.

It is one step. One step more is better, but If you want to do a serious low light photography, you will need something faster than 2.8.

One more thing. When I shot surfing sometimes, with a lot of sunlight and water reflection 2.8 is even with 100 iso, too fast, and then indoor just too slow. That's why I think that that range may not be a priority in your upgrade. Again, these are my experiences with this lens. I have a very old EF 70-210mm f4 non usm, and after borowing 70-200 2.8 from my work place, I had to have that lens. After a couple of "real life" shootings, I understood that I didn't achieve a lot with that F step. Other than that, when you shoot with 200mm, you wish it was at least 400mm.

I am considering other lenses specifically the EF-S 10-22mm, and the EF 24-105 f/4 L.

I also had 24-105 and I liked it but couldn't do anything wide enough, and replaced it with 17-55. Now I wish I got 10-22 instead.