On 9/19/05 4:32 PM, in article Y7GXe.13054$iM2.1103209@news.xtra.co.nz,

Sounds like an urban myth type rumor to me!  Could that "someone who has a
friend . . ." produce some test shots?
 

He's right on one aspect, the non IS version is marginally sharper than the
IS version, in ideal conditions.  The difference in sharpness is measurable,
but probably not visible to even the aided eye.  But the IS will enable you
to get sharper images, overall, than the non IS.  Even on a tripod, if you
are on a slightly unstable platform, like a bridge, dock or upper level
parking garage, there will be some movement.  IS will compensate for that.
The IS does not need to be turned off on that lens, the older IS lenses,
like the 75-300, 28-135 and 100-400 do have that.  But the second and third
generation of IS deals with a tripod just fine.  The 70-200 f2.8 is third
gen. IS.
IS is ALWAYS worth the price, if you can afford it.

The myths continue...
The non IS lens is capable of spectacular pictures and it seldom needs
"ideal" conditions to get them. It's one of the few Canon "L" series
lenses I have any respect for.

The Image stabilizer is another thing entirely. It is heavier to start
with and believe me these lenses are not for hand holding all day unless
you have a robotic arm!

There are several versions of IS from Canon (like their cameras they are
learning how to design properly). Only the latest version produces equal
sharpness to a non IS version and can be used on a tripod or wedged
against a rock.

Choose your subjects... Moving fast cars and birds in flight are a no,no
for the IS lens, regardless of what some might tell you. The Gyro takes
time to wind up and even tho there have been small strides made by
Canon, the thing still has to get going. Here in lies it's principal
fault. As far as low light is concerned, yes... It's ll give you a stop
or two but how many shots will you take in near darkness, Colin?

The difference is negligible.  Get the the IS version, unless you know
you will never be hand-holding it.

Yes, optical quality on the non-IS objectively beats out the IS by a
hair at 60 yards when both are mounted on tripods. If my recollection
is correct, the difference is attributable to the additional element
required for IS gyro. And if all of your photos are going to be taken
with a tripod, mirror-up, then the non-IS might provide you with a
nominal advantage; but it won't provide you with anything that can't
be accomplished just as well with routine post-processing.

But using a lens like this in the real world; and perhaps with a 1.4X
which translates into virtual hand held shooting at 450mm; any modest
advantage provided by the non-IS lens will pale in comparison to
shakey-camera-syndrome.

Regardless of superlatives, my 70-200 IS under ideal conditions,
handheld shots produce stunningly sharp pics; far beyond need. Under
less favourable circumstances, I can only speculate as how much IS
contributed to the final results.

Bottom line: I couldn't be more pleased with the performance of my
70-200 2.8L IS, which is oft attached to a 1.4X!

But I've only provided a single insignificant opinion. For further
extensive array of user experiences, check out:  

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

Regardless of your choice of an 70-200 2.8L, there is no way you'll be
dissapointed with either.

Take a look at these test images.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

"Conclusion

The conclusion is that IS works. With the 75-300/4-5.6IS lens, you
probably gain at least 2 stops, probably three stops, of hand
holdability. Under the lowest light conditions, the consumer zoom IS
lens can outperform an "L" series non-IS lens (though it wouldn't beat
the 300/4L IS lens!). On a tripod, the "L" lens is a clear winner, but
for web images the difference will most likely not be visible."
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

                             -James Nachtwey-
                        http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

I "carried" the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens attached to the 1DMK11 camera body
for a full days shooting and at the end of the day I was so damn tired
of carrying the weight, I didn't care if I never used the 70-200 f2.8 IS
lens again. That's not to say the lens is a dog, no, not by any means. I
consider the lens to rate among the best of Canon, but the weight was
just too much for me to enjoy the use of my equipment.

Upon returning the lens to the store (it was a loaner), I instead bought
the 70-200 f-4 and the 70-300 DO IS lens for about the same costs as the
70-200 F2.8 IS lens. Actually, both lenses were a tad slightly cheaper
than the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. I have yet to regret my decision. The
20-200 f4 is a great lens (photo quality as good as the 70-200 F2.8 IS
lens) and it's usefulness is no different than the many years spent with
other 70-200 f4 lenses such as the old Nikon lens. I use the lens for
portraits (babies to adults) and for other non-recreational uses. The
70-300 DO IS may not be quite as good as the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens but
it's a hell-of-a-lot more versatile and the difference in photo quality,
to the naked eye, is so minimal it may well be considered imperceptible;
that is, in the 70-200 range. I use this lens for recreational
activities and I consider this lens to be a winner.

The final decision is your call Colin but I would suggest you seek a way
to have a days shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens in manners you will
tend to use the lens and then decide accordingly. The lens is not
inexpensive and you may opt, as I did, to consider other equally useful
alternatives.

Colin... Just to ease you mind about this expensive purchase, I thought
you'd like to see a real world example of what you can expect. I shot
this (and about 50 others just as sharp) from a rubber boat during a
shoot in 2003.

The EXIF reports a dud shutter speed but this used to happen when I used
the 1.4x converter. Despite what a spineless troll suggested, I really
do have the evidence to back up my claims!