IS vs NON IS??

[Maria]

I was chatting with someone last night about a 70-200 f/2.8L IS vs NON IS.... and i wanted to get your thoughts on something i was told... 

I was asking how much better the IS would be as a lens vs the NON IS, if needed, worth the extra cost (for an amature etc) and was told that if the subject is moving it really doesn't help much - that IS helps you the camera holder for fast shutter speeds - to hand hold with out blur... but even if you are steady and the subject is moving you may have blur so if you know the subject you will photograph most (in my case a 5 yr old) will be moving then IS isn't really worth it? And since most of my shots will be indoors in low light the last thing i need is super fast shutter speeds! 🙂

Is this really the case? does the IS only help with camera shake?

[ebiggs1]

"Well of course.  But that presumes:" 

 You certainly jest, my friend.  

Let me fill you in on the actual world of photography. Last year one client of mine asked for a slide show on DVD and no prints. Whether she made prints later somewhere else, I don't know. But all the rest have asked for and bought prints. That was one person in two years!

Now the matter of huge prints being the only distinction for buying top-of-the-mark lenses is simply non-sense. You effectively accomplish the same thing when you do crops. Although the actual print size may still be 8x10, or whatever, the effective crop can be much greater.

"D) that by the time you upgrade to the high-end glass something new hasn't come out that now you have to go buy"

 This is probably the best reason to buy the best you can because it will stay in the top longer. I have the first 24-70mm f2.8 and don't see enough improvement in the new one to upgrade it. So, in reality, buying this great lens back then is saving me money.

If you are satisfied with your equipment, so be it, but your ideas of smart lens buying seems to fit only you.