70-200 Somebody sell me on IS

I've been shooting for more years than I care too remember. A lot more film than digital. I can always find a need for f/2.8 rather than f/4 but, do you really need IS. I've taken shots handheld at speeds I thought, there's no way i'm going to get this shot. But I do. Is IS really worth the extra $600.

The only thing I can tell you is to go to the store, put the lens on the camera, zoom it out to it's longest focal length, look through it and press the shutter half way. I guarantee that no one will have to say another word on why IS is so good.

I thought the same thing for several years, but decided to try the IS version. I just sold my non-IS 70-200 f/2.8L. Need I say more.

I have a shot that I regularly exhibit, printed to 13x19, taken with the IS version at 200mm and at 1/20sec. I'm sure you know the rule of thumb - closest shutter speed to the focal length. When I took the shot at 1/20sec I thought it would be a miracle if it came out but when I saw that frame later on the monitor I was sold. There is no way I could have gotten it without IS, that is better than a 3 stop advantage. So, depending on the kind of shooting you do and then what you do with your pictures, yes it is worth it!

Picture this: you are shooting Friday night football from the sideline at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/500s and you turn and see a pretty girl in the stands and she is smiling at you. You bring the camera up to your eye to take her photo, but the stands are a lot dimmer than the field and you can only get 1/30s. What do you do? You reach for the IS button and it's not there - arrrrgh!!!

Need I say more?

The 70-200 2.8 is inferior. That is all.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

The only real way to sell yourself on IS is to actually experience it...strap on an IS lens and go do some iffy light shots!

Thanks folks. I guess i'll have to go try one.

Space wrote in post #3916127
I've been shooting for more years than I care too remember. A lot more film than digital. I can always find a need for f/2.8 rather than f/4 but, do you really need IS. I've taken shots handheld at speeds I thought, there's no way i'm going to get this shot. But I do. Is IS really worth the extra $600.

"I've taken shots handheld at speeds I thought, there's no way i'm going to get this shot. But I do. "

*sarcasm alert*

Do you really expect us to believe that?

You obviously have not allowed the yummy Kool-Aid to be fully absorbed by the part of your brain that is responsible for rational thought . Take another pull son, you sound like one of those pesky analytical types that refuses to be assimiliated.

Same here.

There are now cars for people that find difficulty in parallel parking. I don't want one of those either.

$500 to $600 means different things to different people just as not everybody has the same photographic skills or requirements.

Some find the 70-200 f/4L IS to be the greatest lens on the planet. I'll take a f/2.8 non-IS anyday, but that's just me. I LOVE that Canon makes 4 different 70-200L lenses. That way there's more of a chance that they make the perfect one for you, me and anyone else interested.

Now what I really need is a fully decked out Hummer with giant mud-whomper tires on it because I might be driving down the freeway and see a pretty girl waving to ME (of all people) from the top of a muddy hillside... Boy, then I'll be sorry if I didn't have one .......

In this case "worth" is an extremely subjective term. But hey, if you just want it, come clean and just go get one.

i looked at both the F4 IS and the 2.8 non IS only because i felt that with the faster lens i would not need the IS if i had my shutter speed high enough i think IS is nice but i did not see it more important then the faster glass

My hands shake like I have parkinsons. It's much more pronounced at longer focal lengths. I wish I could have afforded the IS

Big Hands wrote in post #3917263
Now what I really need is a fully decked out Hummer with giant mud-whomper tires on it because I might be driving down the freeway and see a pretty girl waving to ME (of all people) from the top of a muddy hillside... Boy, then I'll be sorry if I didn't have one .......

Pretty girl + mud = you got me sold! The only thing better than that is two pretty girls and mud. Maybe she's got a friend.

Tandem wrote in post #3918012
Pretty girl + mud = you got me sold! The only thing better than that is two pretty girls and mud. Maybe she's got a friend.

With my luck they are really waving to the cop in another lane that I can't see

When you get to be my age, and life has finally given you that little twitch, the IS is really handy...

I hear with IS people have gotten 200mm shots on that thing down to 1/8 of a second. Without, you're at 1/200 at least... Of course, it depends on you but IS works, is it worth the extra money? I think so. Nothing sucks more than maxing out your ISO with nowhere else to go.

Think of IS as an amp that goes to eleven. All the way up. You’re on ten on your guitar, where can you go from there? Where? Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Put it up to eleven?

Eleven. Exactly. One louder.