Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM , Help

I dont want to beat a dead horse when it comes to these high end lenses but I would like to get some opionons on the EF 70-200MM f/2.8L USM ? I know the the lens with Image stabilization would be the best one to have in most cases but I would like to know more about the one without the stabilization? The pictures that I've seen with these lenses are incredible and I need a zoom in this range. I have very steady hands and would like to know if this would be a good lense to purchase. Is it worth spending more money to get the one with the stabilization? Or, is there anyone out there who can sing the praises of the L without the stabilization?

outdoor + good light + hand held - save your money for other stuff and go non-is.... low light + indoor (or outdoor) + hand held = much higher keeper rate. I have a larger lense with IS on it and Iam able to hand hold down to about 15th and my keeper rate is about 70%, before IS it was about 40 to 50% hand held in low light at a 30th. Of course your subject has to cooperate too.

the lens is a stunning piece of glass!

i bought it a while ago and i'm realy happy with it.

i didn't buy the IS because i didn't want to spent a couple hundred more just to have the stabilizer.

for that money i don't mind having a blurry shot sometimes

when i realy need it i'll use my tripod.

After buying my 20D, I borrowed a friends 70-200mm for about 3 weeks until the IS model I had bought arrived. I really liked the lens a lot and found it suitable for most any situation. Unlike you, I don't have an overly steady hand and still managed to get many good shots in low light with slow shutter speeds. I'm sure you would like this lens very much. I love the IS feature on my new lens and personally would not want to be without it, BUT, it is a lot of extra cash and weight for the feature.

Thanks a million Gentleman!! I would love the IS as well.. But, I think I can get by without it for a while. Like someone said "less keepers" ....I can always sell it a couple of years down the line if I need something with IS. Do these lenses hold good value when it comes to resale? I understand it wont bring retail but do you get a decent bang for your buck if put on the market?

... and don´t foreget....

your getting older and then what? Your hands my be shaking then. ... and then you would be saying... if i only would have....

I´d go for the IS version.

ED

This is not meant to be a smartass question but I'm curious. Why pay so much more for IS when you can just pick up a cheap monopod instead? I guess there are some cases where if you have to be on the move a lot it might not be an option but I think thats the route I would take.

What percent of your usage would be indoor or low light?

I would sugest going to a photo store and hand holding the 2.8 w/o IS, IMO it is extremly hard to ballance, and you will have a hard time with any shutter speeds arround 200

So are you saying that if your using the one without IS and you are in a lower light situation then you wont be able to get a sharp picture? Is the one with lacking IS totally useless when shooting a wedding with decent ligh at 200mm?

With respect to holding their value down the road. The "L" lenses especially the F/2.8 models hold value extremely well. If the lens is well looked after and the box, paerwork etc. is kept in good shape you could keep the lens for a year and expect to lose only about $100 off of the retail price.

Not totally useless.. I just have a problem hand holding the 2.8 (both non and w/IS). they are very heavy and seem to be unbalanced compared w/ the f4. but.. w/IS it helps that a bit..

The problem with the f4 is that although it is easier to handhold, you loose a stop, and that stop is probably enough to compensate for the added shake you get from the larger barrel.

I just butted in because I am about to get a 70-200 and I have been researching all of them a LOT.. I have come to the conclusion that I will save a lil longer and get the IS flavor

johnric, can you get a sharp picture with any other 2.8? I can and I can with this lens too. If you shoot sports it's only one more reason to avoid IS. I think IS is great if you really have a use for it. but in terms of keepers, this lens is great. IS will help, but unless you go down to a faster lens, this is as close to perfect you will come, because IS won't compensate for subject movement, only your movement.

I work out and don't have shake issues, but the lens is pretty damn heavy. You will eventually tire if you hold it long enough, I have gone doing a tournament for 9 hours.......But I was dead at the end. It's hard on the forearm, so either start doing more hammer curls or add it to your list.

I actually find it easier to hold steady then the light lenses, you just have to have a good method to hold it. Light lenses feel like they are floating for me, my hand moves around too much, but the with his lens, its great, because as long as you hold it up it won't move that much.

All in all, well worth the money, ya it is a lot more expensive then the f/4, but its also alot cheaper then the IS.

Thanks Persian, that is kind of what I thought. I really need to upgrade my zoom because I'm going to be doing alot more weddings this summer so the lens will pay for itself for sure. I know the IS would be better for the wedding photos in low light but, I just cant justify spending the extra money when I'm going to be taking 300+ pictures. If I cant get some good ones out of 300 then I need to quit taking pictures.. LOL... thanks everyone for your feedback. I cant wait to join the ranks of you L glass owners out there. I dont plan to make photography my full time job just a way to have some fun and make a little extra cheese. I know lots of people because I'm in good with NBC so when I shoot a headshot or do a wedding I get tons of calls from people wanting me to do theirs. I really do take pride in giving the people something beautiful !!! I just shot a friends bridal portrait and she almost cried because she loved it so much! she was amazed at how many good shots that we got. I must say, I still feel so happy about making her smile.

I have the non IS, I mostly shoot motorsport so the lack of IS doesn't bother me too much. I also mainly exercise by lifting cans of beer, and the weight of this lens is something I just live with, and never really think about.

I also shoot weddings, and in church I use a tripod, the shutter speeds with digital mean I get great results, but I think one day I'll get the IS just to help out at weddings.