joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Image stabilization is useful especially on longer lenses. But its not needed at fast shutter speeds and may even work against you.

A 70-200mm should perform just fine w/o IS in the hands of an experienced shooter.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I have quite a collection of lenses, some given to me, and I have to say, in almost every case the lower f-stop number the better. I invariably end up inside, or on a darker, cloudy day, and wish I had the better lenses. Now I do, and I don't regret it one bit. Obviously price is a big factor, but if you are a serious photographer, be it hobby or professional, I would rather get better lenses less frequently or not buy something else and get the best lens I can in each class. By the way, it does not always have to be a Canon or Nikon, Sigma makes some very good lens as well. I unfortunately do not have the 70-200. I have the 70-300, which is ok, but only good outside as it is f4. And yes, I would only buy IS.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Well, thanks for all the valuable input thus far. A couple things I know... First I can't wait for a sale or rebate, the season starts in late August and this will be either my daughters last or next to last season of playing in college depending on when she decides to graduate. So, opportunity to get the shots and timing is most critical.

Also, I will not go with the f4 version as that is too slow for indoors in my experience unless shot at higher ISO. I'll likely go for the IS version as I would prefer to only buy this lens once and there is a good chance it will be used for portraits and perhaps even some wedding work. My daughter is studying photography and wants to do it professionally, so we may share some equipment at least to get her started.

The weight is a disadvantage, but I'm a big guy and have a good monopod if I choose to use it. Probably over 6 lbs with my body and this lens combo.

Thanks again to all who replied so far!

AFD68 Loc: Saugerties, NY

I did this debate (and research) about 6 months ago, as I was in the market for a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. My conclusion was the Canon f/2.8 WITH IS.

1) you will wish you went with the f2.8 over the f4, the very 1st time you do not have enough light for the arena you are working. Wider aperture is always better, if you can get it.

2) The IS is expensive compared to the non-is version, however, to be able to hand hold in certain situations where you either cannot have or do not have your tri/bi-pod with you is priceless! Also, remember, you should at least double the focal length in shutter speed to get a clear shot (hand held). Hard to do in lower light situations.

3) The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM also has an IS feature when following a subject in motion. It basically locks in vertically while panning horizontally with IS or vise-versa.

I did my homework for about a month before my purchase of the IS version, I am happy and content with the extra money spent. I have NEEDED both the IS and the 2.8 numerous times. IMO, the 2.8 vs. the 4 is a no brainer. Only you and your knowledge of what you will be shooting and where, can answer the question of to IS or not to IS! Good luck!

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_70-200_2p8_is_ii

Taken with the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS

(Download)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

One other thing to consider. How steady are you when hand holding a 200mm lens. If you have a 200mm lens and have no problems with camera shake you probably don't need IS. If not maybe you can rent or borrow one for a test shoot to find out. One other thing having nothing to do with photography. Your signature T.O.D. Are you aware that TOD is a medical acronym for time of death ?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Hello Saugerties, from Shokan!

AFD68 Loc: Saugerties, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Hello Neighbor!! Are you a member of any of the local clubs?

AFD68 Loc: Saugerties, NY

That does depend on what shutter speed you are shooting at at 200mm (300 or 320mm crop). I try to use an object (tree, fence, etc.) and the IS. It's all about how crisp you want your shot.
:thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I've gone a couple of Meetups, but that's about it. What clubs are there?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

No, I was not aware of that fact. It is sometimes a problem that the same acronym has a different meaning based on the context these days. Now, as Photographers how many know that ISO is not an acronym?

Notorious T.O.D. comes from a work associate about 15 years ago who because of my size started calling me Biggie Smalls which was was another name used by the NY rapper Notorious B.I.G. Who was murdered a few years before. I'm not a great fan of Rap but I do like Biggie's stuff. He was an amazing talent and is still increasing his net worth almost 20 years after he died. So, since my name is Todd I decided to go with Notorious T.O.D. Partly in fun and partly in respect for the amazing talent of Notorious B.I.G.

Mrsmoses Loc: Oregon

I could not do the photography that I do without my 70-200 2.8. I do mostly events in a covered arena and have shot college basketball from the nose bleed section..very good lens and especially with the monopod. Best investment I have made.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Good point! My camera is 1.3 crop so the 70-200mm becomes a 90-260.

I also have the 85mm 1.8 prime which is about 110mm on my body which I will try shooting some volleyball action. It should work, but might not give as much reach as I desire for the far side of the court.

$2,500 is a good bit of money. I have also considered that I could use the 85mm on my current 1D Mark III and for the same money as the 70-200mm IS II go another direction. For the same money I could buy either another 1D Mark III in excellent condition or a used 5D Mark II and a 135mm Canon prime lens. I would then just shoot with 2 cameras, one for each lens. Certainly something to think about too.

amehta Loc: Boston

The choice between a 70-200mm and 85mm is a tough one. I switched from the zoom to primes (85mm and a 300mm for serves), but I might switch back.

For the kind of money you are talking, I think the best alternative to the zoom is a 5D Mark III, which would let you add 1-2 stops of ISO with little to no loss of image quality.

Full frame, 85mm, ISO 1600, f/2, 1/250s, SOOC, cropped

(Download)

Ramled Loc: Victoria, British Columbia

In my opinion it is worth the $1000 for IS(although I think it is over priced) because for me I have a tendency to shake at times and IS takes care of that. I shoot the Canon 70-200 f2.8 MKII and love the crispness and speed of the lens. It has two settings for IS(general stabilization and panning) and you can shut it off. I use it on my 7D and 6D, it will work great on your 1D MKIII.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I have the Sigma 70-200, f/2.8, and think it is very good. You should consider this or the Tamron, both of which get reviews comparable to the Canon and cost a lot less. No reason to stick with a Canon lens just because you have a Canon body.