Canon 70mm -200mm IS or not?

[Denise Wall]

If it's always going to be on a tripod without using an extender, the non IS version will work for what you're doing. It's a bit sharper and a lot cheaper.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Personally, I find that with a long zoom, one tends to shoot at 70mm or 200mm, but not so much in between. At least that's true for me.

So, if you don't need IS, consider the 200/2.8L prime. I got mine used for $600. Add the 2x extender for $300, and you've got the long-end covered without breaking the bank. The focus ring travel is shorter than I'd like, but probably no worse than on the 70-200 zoom. Image quality on the 200/2.8L is simply stunning. Nail the focus and you can cut object edges with a knife.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Personally, I find that with a long zoom, one tends to shoot at 70mm or 200mm, but not so much in between. At least that's true for me.

That's often how I use it too -- either at 70mm or 200mm -- but it's oh-so-nice to have those two focal lengths in one and the same lens.

-- peer

[Bill Binder]

I seriously can't even imagine not owning this lens (f2.8 IS version), but then again, I guess I'm primarily a photographer who does some multimedia on the side. It's the one lens I bring to every single event I cover never fail. I change up all the other lenses I bring depending on the event, the venue, what I'm trying to accomplish, and how I feel -- but that lens always comes no matter what if it's a serious gig.