IS or not to IS?

Seriously thinking about purchasing a 70-200 L 2.8 IS lens and wondering if I should just get the non-IS version?
I don't do sports photography of any kind.
I will do some bird photography.
Mostly use it for viewing wildlife at a distance(monopod/tripo​d).
Use it for morning or evening landscape photography(tripod).

Question is do I really need the IS? OR save the $600 and get a 1.4 extender with the non-IS lens?

well, I know don't know much but I know this much...IS has no effect on shooting moving objects. It is for compensating for small movements you make when holding the camera or when the tripod moves a tad while the pic is being taken.

I might thing that given what you want to do and depending on just how steady your hands are that it can;t hurt and might even be a good idea...again it all seems to depend on your hands and I guess the conditions you will be shooting in. I has to be a good idea at 300mm fas well as macro or sure.

In your case the IS would certainly be helpful. In fact, only the dedicated sport shooters tend to be the ones who really do not need IS.

All that said, are you sure 200mm is long enough for birds and wildlife? The lens does take a TC pretty well, but not as well as lenses like the 200/2.8 and 300/4.

How about this for a crazy ~$1650 alternative? Get the 70-200/4 non-IS and the 300/4 IS. Eventually you can add a 1.4X TC and cover all the way out to 420mm. You also put IS on the long end where you need it most (though the 300/4 has a pretty old school IS design).

I generally recommend getting the "best" lens you can afford. For the 70~200 series lenses, that generally means opting for the IS since handheld shots at extended focal lengths can greatly magnify any camera shake.

However, in your case, since you are going to be using this lens on a mono/tri-pod, the benefit of having IS is greatly diminished. If you're sure that you will mostly be using it on a support, then save your money with the non-IS and invest the difference in other gear.