Hi Ya Doc, The Non _IS version is slightly slower than the IS version. But both are still being made by Canon and readily available. I have used both but own the older one. I will be switching to the IS version next year primarily due to the fact that it performs better with the 1.4 & the IS does work great in low light. I do sometimes get "motion sick" looking through the IS tho'. Both are rugged lenses but the IS version is better sealed than the Non IS. A few users of the old lens had some issues with the front element coming loose (mind did) after normal to heavy use. But later versions have fixed that, and the IS does not have that issue at all. I really love this lens and it has gotten me several published images, mine does need to go into the shop for an overhaul and cleaning but that is normal with it being nearly 10 years old and hauled all over the place. Just make sure that you use the lens hood and an excellent quality filter at all time and you should have no issues with it either way. If you don't need the 2.8 the f4 version is great too. I have used it but have yet to buy one. It's great for those situations where weight is an issue. The real reason to get the IS is low light. It can buy you quite a bit of difference when shooting action indoors. Also it can lower your need to bump up the ISO and still get usable images. Les Baldwin -----Original Message----- >From: "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Dec 19, 2005 3:16 PM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Canon zoom telephoto lens question. > >Dear all: > >I am about to purchase Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens but am in doubt as to >which model to choose. > >There are basically two models, the difference being that one has IS (image >stabilization) and the other doesn't. Outside of that they seem to be the >same lens. Is this correct ? I have heard that the model without the IS is >an older design and the focus is not as fast or responsive but I am not sure >about the source of this information and how accurate this is. > >Are there any other distinctions between these two models that any of you >would know of ? > >Is IS such a necessary thing as to justify a price increase of 50% ? While >the IS model is selling for about $ 1,700 the model without the IS is >selling for $ 1,140. Is this difference justifiable and will the IS provide >such a major benefit as to compensate for the price difference ? > >Best regards, > >Joseph > >--- > > >Dr. Joseph Chamberlain >Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery >
