70-200 f/4L or 70-200 f/4L IS

Hi, I am new to this Forum.
Just want to know that is anyone intend to purchase 70-200 f/4L IS?
Is it worth the $$ to grab a IS version? I guess it can give 4 stops as compared to non IS.

or maybe a Canon/Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 if you can pay for the f4 IS, id get the f2.8 over the f4 IS

Is it really worth getting the IS of the f/4 lens, there isn't much price difference in buying the f/2.8 IS version. Get the f/2.8

I would, but all the 70-200mm lenses I've had in the past saw very little use (they were very good nonetheless) and were consequently sold. My 70-200mm f/4L is currently on semipermanent loan to a friend.
Anyway, if I were getting the 70-200mm f/4L IS, I'd wait until the prices start falling a bit more. That's what I had to do back when the 17-85mm IS was $600 new; that was way more than what I was willing to pay for what it offered.

I'd rather go Non-IS and have another decent lens, could get the 10-22 for the difference!

AFAIK you don't need the IS if your shooting sport with high shutter speeds anyway but I guess if your subject is a little slower in low light then get the IS, or the 2.8 if it isn't to heavy.

The f/4 IS sure would be a lot lighter than the f/2.8 packing around on those long hikes.

Any idea what is the price difference bet Non-IS and IS version?
Does 4-stops, weather seal, better optics justify for the extra $$?

I'd find it hard to justify. If I was going for F/4 I'd do non-IS, otherwise I'd get an F/2.8 either canon or sigma.

Im in the same situation- trying to decide between the 70-200 f/4, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

If I am not taking many shots of fast moving subjects, I was thinking the f/4 IS with the several stop difference over the f/4 non-IS may give me the option to use it in low-light situations.

Still difficult to justify 2x the price of the f/4 non-IS though or almost the same price as the 2.8 non-IS...

How usable is the 2.8 non IS at 200mm without a tripod?