Canon 70-200 2.8: IS vs non IS

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'm considering selling my 70-300 IS lens and buying a 70-200 2.8. (I do lots of low light work - parties, concerts, etc').
I'm deliberating between the IS and the non IS versions, the price premium is considerable, but it seems immensely important. Does anyone have any experience with it?

[DaveJB]

I'd actually be more inclined to go for the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is about the same price as the vanilla 2.8 version, but should cope a bit better in low-light situations thanks to its image stabilizer. The 2.8 IS v1 isn't really worth considering due to the fact that it has quite an old IS design that cancels out its wider aperture, and the 2.8 IS v2 is a hell of a nice lens but the cost is equally hellacious.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The 2.8 IS v1 isn't really worth considering due to the fact that it has quite an old IS design that cancels out its wider aperture, and the 2.8 IS v2 is a hell of a nice lens but the cost is equally hellacious.

Well, that would depend on whether the subjects are moving or not. Better IS cannot compensate for subject movement, but one f-stop faster lens gets you half the exposure time at the same ISO. For example if I was shooting a concert of a band that likes to move around a lot, I would definitely want as fast lens as possible. Motion blur can be a nice effect, but if you have no choice it gets old fast.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

This site has a bunch of reviews on various Canon lenses. You might find it useful.

I've also been considering the IS 2 vs the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 when I'm stateside again and I start buying all my camera equipment. I don't think I will be worrying about AF too much since I intend to have a monopod or tripod if I'm going to be bringing my camera out so IS wouldn't really be something I would worry about.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Ripp, I am WELL aware of TDP, Dpreview etc'.

I purchased the non IS version in the end due to simply not having enough cash, and finding a used version of the lens for the same cost it'd be in the USA. I'd REALLY recommend anyone buying such a thing to save their cash for the IS version - the minimum focal distance is crap, and the weight combined with the lack of stabilization are heinous.
It's also unbelievable image quality and worth every penny