dasloaf

awesome len! you made the right choice!

beverett Loc: los angeles

Great lens! I'm not a big fan of IS, so mine is without. Works fine handheld when shooting daytime sports from sidelines. For other types of work, use a tripod.

Toby

I have one and it's heavy, expensive and fantastic. I love it.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

One of the all time greats...I seldom use the IS but that's just me. Tac sharp and extremely useful in many, many situations.

gonate Loc: sacramento,calif

I have one and I love it,cant do without it.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I've got the IS version made about 3-4 years ago. I like it very much. They are a little heavy, but not compared to my 500mm f4L IS. After hefting that lens up, the 70-200 is a snap.

tbissonn Loc: Boston

I own the IS version of this lens. It is exceptional in taking photographs at sporting event and concerts. I travel extensively and this along with my w/a lens is invaluable. Yes it is somewhat heavy but worth the weight. Also this lens does not have a telescoping barrel so that is a plus. Works great hand held in low light. I also mount it on a Canon 60D. Worth the price.

peggyjom Loc: Pacific Northwest

I have a II I would never part with it. It is always on my camera some times with the 2x tele converter sometimes not. Only draw back is wieght. Total unit camera and converter is close to a smog over 7 lbs. love it love it though!

peggyjom Loc: Pacific Northwest

Really? The 2.8 is faster and better at light than the 4 your kidding right! I walk around with this lens all the time. I have lugged up mountains and down to the ocean. My other lenses have dust! , :) I use a gitzo tripod some times but hand hold a lot it is pretty darn sharp I don't do much pp just cropping.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Best zoom lens on the planet! Because of the weight, should be used with a monopod anyway ! Put a 2X behind it and shoot wildlife - again with monopod ! IS is really not that important- and will eventualy be problematic.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

I have the newer 70-200mm USM lens. The 2.8 is better for sports photography, than the non-L lenses I was attempting to use before, which were f/3.5, f/4.0 down to f/5.6, depending on where I zoomed the focal length to. The 70-200mm L lens is great because it's the same aperture, no matter what. You don't have to worry about adjusting exposure when you use different focal lengths. Also, the f/2.8 is better in low light than the apertures I was able to get with the cheaper lenses.
In addition, the sharpness is noticeably better than with the non-L lenses. In addition, the auto focus is faster and better.
I also like that the focus has two modes for faster focus, depending upon if your subjects are really close, or if they're not. Just changing to the alternative focusing at a game where you're never within 10 feet of the subject, allows faster and more accurate focusing.

I have a friend that has been using the non-IS version, and he has been able to get consistently wonderful images without. All of this is done hand-held. I've never seen him with a tripod.

beverett Loc: los angeles

If you're shooting at f/2.8 on a sunny day at ISO 100, your shutter speed would be around 1/3000. If that's too slow, you can up the ISO. Wide aperture is best for most sports and wildlife.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

True. But if I have the luxury of good natural light, I'll tend to go for a little more DOF and shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 and try to get a shutter speed around 1/2000th or better.