Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS vs non IS USM Lens

[quazibari]

Hi there. I am planning to buy the above lens that comes as both IS and non IS. The price for the IS ($1300) is just double the non IS ($650). Since this is a big difference in price, will I loose a lot by not buying the IS version? FYI I have a Canon Rebel t2i camera body.

[inkista]

Depends on what you're shooting, and how critical your eye is for sharpness. The IS version of the f/4 70-200L is a later design than the non-IS one and is a hair sharper. If you're planning on slapping a 2x tc on it, you might notice the difference. Both are good lenses, though and solid performers.

If you're planning on using the lens with shutter speeds below 1/200s, then the IS comes into play.

[quazibari]

inkista: Thanks for your insights. There would be occassions when I would have to use shutter speed slower than 1/200s. I think I would go for the IS. Sharpness does matter to me.

[arkusm]

quazibari
I got the non IS version of the lens. I have found that pretty much the only time I use the lens is outside due to the focal length I generally don't have enough room to use the 200mm, so shutter speeds lower than 1/200 are less common unless you are shooting later at night, and you have a bit of leeway by bumping the ISO. I have taken some great images of the moon that show crater detail.

I love the lens, the images are so sharp and the bokeh is great.