Canon 70-200 f/4 vs Canon 70-200 f/4IS

[private]

Is the IS as sharp as the non IS version? I can get the non IS now (Instant gratification and all ) or wait a month or two and get the IS version..

Any help will be appreciated.

[PrimeTime]

Originally Posted by private

Is the IS as sharp as the non IS version? I can get the non IS now (Instant gratification and all ) or wait a month or two and get the IS version..

Any help will be appreciated.

Read the reviews at SLR GEAR. They tested both lenses and the IS version was a little sharper.

I use a 300 f/4L IS and the IS makes a huge difference. F/4 isn't that fast and you will prob. need the IS at the upper end of the lens. I've gotten good photos all the way down to 1/13's with my 300. I loose alot with the slow shutter speeds, but you can get a few good keepers. I would wait and get the IS version.

[toddybear]

IS is totaly worth it. Go for it.

[FrankLamont]

Can you fork out the extra bit for the f/2.8 version (without IS)?

If the matter is money, then... what more oft are you bound to shoot; how do you normally cope with IS/non-IS lenses; etc.

If money is not the matter then get over instant gratification and wait.

[gturner]

I am very happy with the non-IS, but I guess I don't know what I am missing.

I shoot mainly moving subjects (kids running about or sports) so IS is pointless. The non-IS focusses EXTREMELY quickly, so fast you cannot even here or see it when tracking