70-200 f2.8 Is IS worth it?

[kohzoni]

hello! I was just thinking about something.

Canons 70-200 f2.8 vs 70-200 f2.8 IS
The IS is a difference of like what, a thousand dollars? Is it worth it? Mainly i love shooting indoor like concerts/musicals and outdoor sports. But i could just use a monopod to reduce blurring right. I could very well buy another lens with that amount of money. Moneys a big big issue >.<

What about the sigma 70-200 f 2.8? Its much cheaper. Advice on these lenses will be much appreciated =D

[trlnlty]

Originally Posted by kohzoni hello! I was just thinking about something. Canons 70-200 f2.8 vs 70-200 f2.8 IS The IS is a difference of like what, a thousand dollars? Is it worth it? Mainly i love shooting indoor like concerts/musicals and outdoor sports. But i could just use a monopod to reduce blurring right. I could very well buy another lens with that amount of money. Moneys a big big issue >.< What about the sigma 70-200 f 2.8? Its much cheaper. Advice on these lenses will be much appreciated =D

welll this topic has been discussed to death already.

getting is gives you the advantage of shooting indoors...

if money is a BIG BIG issue, get the sigma and use the extra money to get a fast prime or something. probably can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 + 50 1.4 + 85 1.8 for an 70-200 is


people who get the L usually want the fast auto-focus + L optics + weather sealing and of course IS.

[Kit]

Originally Posted by kohzoni hello! I was just thinking about something. Canons 70-200 f2.8 vs 70-200 f2.8 IS The IS is a difference of like what, a thousand dollars? Is it worth it? Mainly i love shooting indoor like concerts/musicals and outdoor sports. But i could just use a monopod to reduce blurring right. I could very well buy another lens with that amount of money. Moneys a big big issue >.< What about the sigma 70-200 f 2.8? Its much cheaper. Advice on these lenses will be much appreciated =D

If you had to find justifications for a lens, then don't get it.