Please advise on 20-70 f/2.8 L lens

I will be buying a 70-200 f/2.8 L lens but need advice on which one.

This is a dollar loaded question so a few hundred saved would be good.

Therefore I need to know if the IS is necessary when most shots are from a tripod? Is IS advised for this lens when tripod mounted?

I have battled the shakes for some time and finally acquired a 24-70 f/2.8 L USM that is weight balaced with my camera well enough I get a fair percentage of decent shots hand held. While I do not expect those results from the 70-200 I would pay for the IS if it would contribute significantly to hand holding as well as on the tripod.

I really envy you guys who walk around colecting those great hand held photos.

Thank you

Jim Curts

IS gives you around 4 stops of allowance although if you're tripod mounted you'd need to switch IS off as it wouldnt be much use when you're camera is already steady.
I have a 70-200 f2.8 non IS and as soon as I can afford it I will be upgrading to IS. I guess it depends what you're shooting? I'm now shooting low light, hence the need for the upgrade.

It is actually advised that IS be shut off on the tripod. The IS can actually hunt and cause your images to be less sharp when used on a tripod. So if the majority of your shots are from a tripod then you may not want to spend the extra money.

No, IS is pointless if most of your shooting is on a tripod; it's generally best to simply turn it off in that situation.

IS is definitely worth it for hand-held shooting, to me; and sounds like it would be for you as well. Without IS I can hardly get a keeper, due to minor tremors I've had since I was a kid.

So, tripod: No
Handheld: Yes

It won't apply to both situations.

NOTE: The IS I've used is on the 100-400L, 70-200 MKII (cannot comment on the MkI's efficiency) and a couple of Tamrons.