"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do I
see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500 increase in price over
the non IS version, if such does exist in the lineup. The only times this
has occurred is with the old 75-300, a cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as
I am concerned, the 70-200 f2.8L ($1100 vs $1600) and the current 70-200 f4L
($600+ vs. $1100). Not exactly triple the price. When you get into the
long teles, the price premium becomes such an insignificant part of the
whole as to drop out of consideration, like with the 600mm f4L at more than
$7000.
So far, newer Canon IS lenses maintain their lead over sensor based IS, the
24-105 f4L and 70-200 f4L IS lenses give a minimum of 4 stops of correction.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm