70-200 F2.8 Is or Non IS ????

I may have a chance to get a 70-200 F2.8 BUT it is non IS...here is the question:
1. Will I have remorse later for not getting the IS version?

I have a 100- 400 IS and I will use the 70-200 primarily for indoor school programs, recitals and portraits, with AB strobes

I have relatively steady hands and took sharp airshows before with my cheapo non IS 75- 300 mm and I had no issues, I was using a lighter lens and camera xSi.

Thanks

ps, the non is is selling for $800, thus about $700 less than a used IS version...is the IS worth the $700?

The IS itself in my opinion is not worth the $700.

But in truth, the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 is sharper then the Non-IS version. Now coupled with that my friend.. is worth the $700.

comparing the relative sharpness of any of the 70-200 series lenses is ludicrous. They are all razor sharp.

matonanjin wrote in post #10295575
comparing the relative sharpness of any of the 70-200 series lenses is ludicrous. They are all razor sharp.

I disagree. My old 70-200 f/2.8 is no where as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 both wide open. I've own both at the same time previously.. I eventually sold the 70-200f/2.8 non-is.

On a hiking trip few months ago, i got the chance to compare it to my friend's 70-200/f4 IS. That blew my non-is f/4 away.

I chose the non IS version when I bought the 70-200 2.8.
IS was not worth the extras dollars to me. IMO, there is no practical difference between a non IS and and IS version of these lenses when comparing sharpness.
When you are using the lens under your AlienBee, the IS will provide no useful benefit.

Thanks for the feedback, I will be checking the lens.

Jdmhood wrote in post #10295551
The IS itself in my opinion is not worth the $700.

But in truth, the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 is sharper then the Non-IS version. Now coupled with that my friend.. is worth the $700.

No it's not. Pure myth, urban legend etc..

I had the F/2.8 non-IS version for about 2 years, and just recently moved to the F/2.8 IS (MK1) version. For me personally, I moved to the IS version because at that focal length, I just wasn't able to get the hand-held results I wanted. When I would shoot with the non-IS version on a monopod, I would get spectacular results, but handheld my keeper rate was many times lower than with the rest of my lenses.

I tend to think I have decent handholding technique, but I fully admit that the F/2.8 non-IS got the better of me, and knowing what I know now, I wish I had just bought the IS version right off the bat.

FYI, I agree, the sharpness arguments are myth. People see what they want to see.

BluewookieJim wrote in post #10295967
I had the F/2.8 non-IS version for about 2 years, and just recently moved to the F/2.8 IS (MK1) version. For me personally, I moved to the IS version because at that focal length, I just wasn't able to get the hand-held results I wanted. When I would shoot with the non-IS version on a monopod, I would get spectacular results, but handheld my keeper rate was many times lower than with the rest of my lenses.

I tend to think I have decent handholding technique, but I fully admit that the F/2.8 non-IS got the better of me, and knowing what I know now, I wish I had just bought the IS version right off the bat.

FYI, I agree, the sharpness arguments are myth. People see what they want to see.

The purchase will be local so I can check if I can ahold thisnlarge lens without is

Jdmhood wrote in post #10295596
I disagree. My old 70-200 f/2.8 is no where as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 both wide open. I've own both at the same time previously.. I eventually sold the 70-200f/2.8 non-is.

On a hiking trip few months ago, i got the chance to compare it to my friend's 70-200/f4 IS. That blew my non-is f/4 away.

Your f2.8 must have needed some work (or camera,calibration).I have the f2.8 non IS and the f4 IS and sometimes the f2.8 is sharper than the f4 IS.According to the charts(and from reading users reviews) the order of sharpest (from sharpest) is: f4IS,2.8 non IS,f4 non IS, then (last)2.8 IS.That was from before the 2.8 IS mk.II(I don't think that four changed order with the mk.II now the king.)

Jdmhood wrote in post #10295596
I disagree. My old 70-200 f/2.8 is no where as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 both wide open. I've own both at the same time previously.. I eventually sold the 70-200f/2.8 non-is.

On a hiking trip few months ago, i got the chance to compare it to my friend's 70-200/f4 IS. That blew my non-is f/4 away.

This is the quote that I was refering to.

tonyniev wrote in post #10296041
The purchase will be local so I can check if I can ahold thisnlarge lens without is

It wasn't any particular shots that led me to conclude I couldn't consistently hand-hold the lens. It was the greater cumulative experience. For example, my keeper rate hand-held was really low compared to what I'm used to with my other lenses, probably around 25-30%. Now as soon I would put it on my monopod, that keeper rate was in line with my other experiences.

The biggest difference I notice now with the IS version is in framing/composition. That focus point is not jumping all over the place like it did when I didn't have IS, so I am more relaxed, not trying extra hard to compensate, etc...

I guess it depend on what focal length you shoot. if you shoot at 70mm? you can get away with it. At 200mm, You WILL WISH you have IS and be happy to pay that extra 700 and more for it.
I find that shooting at 70mm f2.8. The image is a bit soft. But if you step down to 70mm @ f4? it is sharp. i would say the sweet spot on the 70-200mm f2.8IS is at 100-135mm @f4 (very sharp, compareable to primes).

Had 70-200mm f2.8 non IS. Very sharp but then got 70-200mm f2.8 IS ver I. I can now do sharp shots at 1/30sec. while with non IS I had atleast to 1/300. Sharpness is very slightly less. The newer ver II might be better but is lot more $$.

I don't know where $700 difference comes. Buying used non IS typically go for $950 while IS ver I is $1450. So $500 only.

Regarding f4, it can't do f2.8 so don't know why folks talking about it. It can be super sharp but so what.

eddyav wrote in post #10296178
Your f2.8 must have needed some work (or camera,calibration).I have the f2.8 non IS and the f4 IS and sometimes the f2.8 is sharper than the f4 IS.According to the charts(and from reading users reviews) the order of sharpest (from sharpest) is: f4IS,2.8 non IS,f4 non IS, then (last)2.8 IS.That was from before the 2.8 IS mk.II(I don't think that four changed order with the mk.II now the king.)

Might be. It's the only copy that i encounter. It is really soft even when stopped down to f/4.