IS vs. non-IS (image stabilazition)

[jeffreyem]

Considering the Canon 70-200 F2.8L, but it comes in 2 flavors with and without IS. I have two older non "L" lenses with IS and I don't use the functionality that often. Am I missing out? It's an expensive upgrade on the better lens, but is it worth it?

Jeff

[Michael Fanelli]

Considering the Canon 70-200 F2.8L, but it comes in 2 flavors with and without IS. I have two older non "L" lenses with IS and I don't use the functionality that often. Am I missing out? It's an expensive upgrade on the better lens, but is it worth it?

Jeff

If you always have a tripod handy, you don't need IS. Personally, I keep IS on all the time and find it more valuable than autofocus. But then, I rarely carry a tripod anymore.

FWIW, many people who claim to have very steady hands actually don't! They are just fooling themselves. For me, I'd say "without a doubt" to IS. Your needs may be different.

[SmartWombat]

Another vote for IS here, it makes a big difference even when I think I'm holding it all steady.
I tried with IS off and it was quite a shock to see how poor I was at controlling the camera !

[Lionheart]

Considering the Canon 70-200 F2.8L, but it comes in 2 flavors with and without IS. I have two older non "L" lenses with IS and I don't use the functionality that often. Am I missing out? It's an expensive upgrade on the better lens, but is it worth it?

Jeff

I've had both flavors (the non-IS version got stolen) and while IS is nice to have, I don't use it all that much. With the slight re-design of the switch layout on the IS lens, I've found that it is easy to accidentally switch AF and IS off and on.It's very aggravating since I never had this problem with the original 70-200 f2.8L. On the other hand, when you need IS, and you don't have a tripod handy, IS is very valuable. Having IS has allowed me to leave my tripod at the studio permanently (almost). Just like its predecessor, the new 70-200 remains my workhorse lens.