Here is my question...I cannot afford to buy this lens new right now, so I have been looking around close to home (st. Louis) for one used and the only one I have seen i the non IS version...anybody shooting with this lens or have shot with both and can compare? Is it worth it to hold out?

thanks guys!

kate

They are both great lenses and will produce comparable images. I prefer the IS version as it allows me to hand hold 200mm 1/15sec exposures if necessary. If you shoot with a tripod or a monopod, save the money and buy the non-IS.

I'd get the IS-it's a heavy lens, so it can be hard to hand-hold at times.

yeah-- I figure with withe either one of those lenses there will be a hand-cramping brak in period. Maybe I should start using one of those squeezy hand strengtheners now! ha ha. I would prefer to handhold when I can though...

IS hands down......

Hand hold a 200mm at 1/15 is priceless when you need it. But maybe if your not tortured by wedding clients that pick dark churches then you don't need the IS.

IS is absolutely essential. The entire lens is much better... I HIGHLY suggest that you just save your dough and buy the IS version when you can. It's well worth it and the lens will last you forever.

Best of luck!

Hold out for the IS if you primarily shoot handheld (which has already been said)

thanks guys-- seems the vote is pretty unanimous! Patience I suppose... :-)

I have the Non IS and Im loving it. I was never a real believer in the IS technology...didnt see any real visible difference. I also use a monopod when I need to. For the extra $500 Im sure you can buy something else.

I had the non IS and traded it in for the IS. Absolutely worth it to me not to have to lug a tripod around.