ramcasty Loc: california

I know that IS lens helps or keeps you from blurring your subject... Since the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is so pricey, can anyone explain if the non IS could deliver the same quality compare with the IS one? Thank you!

snowbear

Just do what was done before the days of Image Stabilization - shoot at a faster shutter speed or use a tripod.

ramcasty Loc: california

Thanks for the tips... can you tell me the ratio, for example if im using 100 Av on the IS, what will be the Av on the non IS? Thanks a lot!

RaydancePhoto

The quality of the 2 lenses are about the same. Mine has IS, but for me it is useless. Hand holding this monster is not something I can do for long, so it ends up on a tripod anyway. The lens is just too heavy for me.

ramcasty Loc: california

Thank you ray! now Ill gonna buy the non IS... have great day!

Mytherwyn Loc: United States

Ok to start with it's lense NOT lens....lol just kidding don't want to get that started again...LOLOLOLOLOL..

SteveR Loc: Michigan

MTShooter feels that VR or IS is not useful until 300mm +. If the glass is the same, go with the less expensive lens. In Nikon's case, however, the VR version is the better lens (I don't even know if a non-VR version is available).

ramcasty Loc: california

Thanks steve, Im now more confident on buying the non IS... Have a nice day!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

In general, IS will allow you to shoot two stops slower than non-IS. Minimum shutter speed on a non-IS should be 1/200 or 1/250. IS will allow you to shoot at 1/50 or 1/60. This will, of course, translate into two stops if your concern is aperture. If you typically shoot at 1/250 & f/8, IS should alloy you to shoot at 1/60 and f/16. If this is what you want or need in a lens, ask yourself if the trade-off is worth the cost.

Granddad Loc: UK

I have the non IS lens and it doesn't restrict me from the shots I want to take. I always have my mono tripod with me with fits into a holder on my camera bag and I would rather pay £60 for a good mono tripod than an extra £600/700 for the IS lens imho.

CanonShot Loc: Lancaster County, PA

I have used the 2.8 IS model for more than a year. I get into many situations where monopod and tripod mounted images are just not possible. At parades where crowds line the sidewalks, I end up at times sitting on the curb where "swing" shots provide the images I need. It's just a situation where you have to stay with the flow of the subjects until that magic moment arrives.

Other times, I am in a kayak where moving in on resting shore side wildlife can be affected by tidal or current movement and no larger lens is practical. At other times, I am at relatives birthday parties where the best outdoor shots require a fast zoom lens and, again, a tripod or monopod puts me on the outside of the action area for those neat spontaneous shots and nothing, IMHO, will capture it as well as a 70-200 IS II lens.

The IS feature as "saved" my day in these situations so many times that I always recommend the heavier IS model. Thus, I chose the model that gives me every advantage in an important "shooting" situation where the 70-200 becomes the "go to" lens.

Bottom line: How important is "every advantage" to your photography?

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I agree that IS is not necessary for every shot but it sure comes in handy when you need it. The added weight was not a concern to me as I shoot with heavy lenses quite a bit. It was worth the extra cost to me so I'm ready for almost any situation. It's like 4 wheel drive on a truck, not needed all the time but when you need it, it's there.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Good comparison, but the added cost of each is a serious consideration. As you said, it's all a matter of need/importance.

Edmojo Loc: Manhattan New York

I had purchased the Tamaron without and had 14 days to return it. I could not keep it stable without a tri pod or a monopod. So I returned it got the Sigma 70 to 200 2.8 with I.S. I would have rather purchased the Nikon bot at 2400 or a thousand dollars more just wasn't an option.

Very happy! the non I.S lens would be fine shooting faster but that is not the reason you want a 2.8 , the low light conditions that will make the difference.

Ed

hj Loc: Florida

Can't substantiate it, but I've read several other reviews that claim the NON-IS is sharper. I shoot night-time soccer under the lights, so just purchased the Canon 70-200L NON-IS since I wouldn't be using IS on the monopod. Time will tell. Haven't even had a chance to use it yet.