Upgrading 70-200

Anyone here used both the IS and non-IS versions of the Canon 70-200 2.8? I'm currently using the first-generation non-IS version on my 7D for sports, but I'm not too thrilled with the quality of my images of faster sports like soccer and tennis.

When doing fast-paced sports with the non-IS 2.8, I can't get razor sharp images until about 1/1250. I can get the sharp pictures at lower shutter speeds with my 70-300L IS but at 300mm 5.6 on the long end, I have in-focus, very distracting backgrounds. I think 2.8 is essential for these sports, but I've been leaving it at home and taking the 70-300L just to get that razor-sharp look. I have considered the 300 2.8 but I'm not in a position right now to lay out $6,500 for a lens.

I'm considering selling my non-IS 2.8 and buying a refurbished 2.8 IS II, but would I notice a difference with the IS? I understand that in theory, IS isn't necessary on the 70-200 when shooting above 1/200 FF or 1/320 on a 1.6, but I'm noticing a loss of sharpness without IS.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

have considered the 300 2.8 but I'm not in a position right now to lay out $6,500 for a lens.

---

Same here...the 300 f/2.8 II is a BEAUTY...seriously...it's amazing and makes the 7D usuable in sports, particularly at night where the 7D is otherwise a bit sketch in quality and performance. Since I can't afford one either though I rent one often. If you're near a big city there's almost certainly a place that'll rent them out near you.

Quote:

---

I'm considering selling my non-IS 2.8 and buying a refurbished 2.8 IS II, but would I notice a difference with the IS?

---

Absolutely, yes. The IS, especially on the II, is astoundingly good. I own it and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Especially for sports where there's heavy action like soccer, 1/1000th+ is required for razor sharp below f/4...and the IS will help add extra stability.

Thanks for the comment, Jeremy. I found someone I know who has the 2.8. II IS--I'm going to see if I could try it before I buy one.