Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I had the 70-200 f/4 L(non IS) some years ago and found it to be a superb lens, provided you had appropriate light. I upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS) eventually. There's certainly a trade off in terms of speed vs weight, but it's not unwieldy.

It's really a matter of where you plan to use it (ie, the light you'll be in) vs how much you can afford to spend.

http://forums.mycanikon.com/showthread.php?t=4023

my "review" and my comparison and reason why i went for the f4 IS instead of non-IS, 55-250 IS, 70-300 IS USM, and tamron and sigma comparisons

Clish, Congrats on your first TPMG post!

Wow - that's a pretty comprehensive review. It helps me rationalize my purchase of a 70-200 4/L IS and in similar ways mimics some of the things I went through going from my optical excellent 70-210mm, f3.5-4.5, 20 year old workhorse that suffered from zoom creep.

I too was convinced IS would be a big help on a longer lens and it does not disappoint. It also focuses very fast on my 40D.