with or without IS

I am wondering if a 70-200 2.8 with a tripod is worse, equal to, or better in performance to the same lens with IS?

If I got the one with IS I'd need a tripod anyway, cause I probably couldn't hold it. So if I got a tripod, would I actually need IS?

If you ALWAYS used a tripod with this lens, then spending the $$ on the IS would be a waste. However, if there are times when you don't have time/space/inclination to setup the tripod, then the IS can be a life saver.

Performance - in the optics department, they are different lenses and opinions vary as to which 2.8 is the best. Here google is your friend.

How about using a monopod instead.

A tripod is the best image stabilizer by a mile. IS is useful when you can't use a tripod.

A tripod is an essential tool for every photographer; IS is a handy tool at times.

Hard to say which would be better for you. Depends on what and how you shoot and under what conditions you will be using the lens.

For me, a tripod is usually not an option for what/how/where I shoot.

Ask yourself if its worth 500 bucks. imho, I would look at the f4 IS version. Images have better contrast, In my experience the f4 is a little sharper. (send in the angry posters who are hurt by comment.) Cameras today have such good iso performance that unless you do extreme work(little birds in dark woods, indoor sports) the f4 version will do awesome. I've had both. As for the IS question... If you handhold a lot , or don't like using a tripod, fork out the dough.

bohdank wrote in post #8654438
Hard to say which would be better for you. Depends on what and how you shoot and under what conditions you will be using the lens.

Very true. There are a lot of variables to consider. I bought the IS because I could and I'd rather have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it. For sports, I have IS turned off since it doesn't make a difference at the fast SS but have used it for other types of shoots.

Personally I think the IS version of the f4 is a better value than the non IS, even with the steep premium in price which is a ripoff, all things considered.

It turns an optically excellent lens into a significantly more versatile lens, imo.

If a one trick pony is all thay you need (high speed sports), then get the non IS, otherwise paying the premium for the IS is putting good money after good

thanks for your responses. I think I need 2.8 for the speed and light. It's to try to capture whippets mainly, at full speed. I'll use it for other stuff too but that's my (current) obsession.

I think I am more undecided than ever. I see alot of posts where people have started out with the non IS and sell it to get the IS. Does it ever work the other way around I wonder.

Only if they need the money. There is no downside to IS.

bohdank wrote in post #8657195
Only if they need the money. There is no downside to IS.

+1

IS won't freeze motion for you, but it will make some shots possible that would be impossible without it, especially if one is shooting hand held at 200mm in less than perfect light.

I seem to do that all the time.

Whippeticious wrote in post #8653788
I am wondering if a 70-200 2.8 with a tripod is worse, equal to, or better in performance to the same lens with IS? If I got the one with IS I'd need a tripod anyway, cause I probably couldn't hold it. So if I got a tripod, would I actually need IS?

Don't have the 70-200 (don't need one) but I have the 100-400L, which is enormous, has IS, and I love it.

I don't own a tripod. I've had a love-hate relationship with tripods for 30 years, and now only have a monopod and a tiny, Slik, table-top tripod that my camera shop gave me for other lenses.

If you shoot weddings, air-shows, stadium-sports, etc., yeah, you'd find life easier with a tripod. But I don't do those.
I shoot people (candid and on-location photo shoots), birds, non-stadium sports, etc. so I find tripods expensive and cumbersome.

Holding a 70-200 2.8L IS (about the same as my 100-400L) is perfectly ok. Brace it and yourself, and you'll be ok, at 200mm, down to 1/50s. Use a monopod, and I think you can get down to 1/20s. If you have problems, then get a tripod - or monopod!!!!!

Why not go to lensrentals.com and just -rent- the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and see how you feel about it

If you really do -NEED- a tripod for it, well, then save the money get the non-IS or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro II....

But if you find you do handhold it, Get the IS version

I have the 70-200 2.8L non-IS on a 20D and I primarily shoot indoor cheer and dance competitions (typically very poorly lit) without a flash. What I find is that I have to shoot at least 1/250 shutter speed in order to freeze action and at 200mm on a crop body it is on the edge of where I should be hand-holding the lense.

I have, for some time, been considering whether the IS version would really help considering the extra $$$ and weight. I think that if I had the extra $500 when I bough the lens that I would have got the IS version. As it was I bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 first and then rented the Canon and immediately sold the Sigma. I fear the same would happen if I tried the IS version. Right now I just don't have the extra $$$ to get all the things I "want" (50D, 580EX, 70-200 2.8L IS, new laptop) and still pay for the things I have to pay for (sons wedding, windows on the house, maintaining cars, etc).

Do yourself a favor... buy the IS and if you decide you never need IS, trade it for my non-IS :^)