Canon 70-200mm L F2.8 IS USM

[Flibidib02]

I've ordered the non-IS version but am thinking about upping the order to the IS, does anyone have any experience with the difference, I've read very mixed reviews?!

Also does anyone have the above but F4 and non-IS?

Thanks :)

[MisterB]

I have used both in my job as a photographer an both of them there is very little difference in i currently have the IS version of this lens an loving everything about it

[Reef bloke]

I have the 70-200 f4 i.s,great lens and very sharp.The 4 stops of I.S really come in handy in low light,obviously no good if the object is moving though.I was looking at the 2.8 non I.S but i dont shoot sports etc so the f4 is fine for my needs and the bokeh is smooth enough at f4 for my liking.

[MisterB]

The 70-200mm F4 IS is a great lens i changed mine recently to the F2.8 version an glad that i did

[Reef bloke]

What did you find better MisterB? Id love the 2.8,im just not sure at use it wide open that much.

[MisterB]

I find the F2.8 much better to be honest

[Flibidib02]

That's my predicament. I'm reconsidering the f4 due to the lower weight that would help as this will be used in hiking situations alot and it's renowned for being great in this field. But I've just heard such good things about the 2.8 I don't know whether I'd always wish I added the extra money...

Choices....

[Reef bloke]

Hard to say untill you have tried both id imagine,my f4 i.s is really light though.The F4 i.s is supposed to be the sharpest of all the 70-200 canon L's,well in most of the reviews any way.Not sure if you would notice the little extra sharpness unless pixel peeping.
I suppose the only ansewer would be to get yourself to a camera shop and try both.