Canon 70-200mm: Is the NON IS Version Sharper?

I'm about to purchase a Canon 70-200mm 2.8. The consensus points to the non IS version being sharper than the IS version, especially wide open.

I do realize that a stabilized image is sharper at slow shutter speeds, but I'll mostly be on a tripod or monopod in daylight; IS not necessary. SO, I'm trying to find out if it's true about the NON IS being a sharper lens.

Thanks!

Paul

This will not answer your question, but I compared the 70-200 2.8 non-IS to the 70-200 4.0 non-IS. I found the 4.0 to be ever-so-slightly sharper. This difference was so small as to be insignificant. My only point in bringing it up is that if you don't need the faster lens, the 4.0 is much cheaper and far lighter. If you do need the faster lens, never mind.

70-200 4.0 non-IS is one of the best lens I've ever used. Highly recommended.

They did a group test on Photography Monthly quite recently with the sharpest being the 2.8L IS followed by the 4L then the 4L IS. Nikon's 70-200mm 2.8VR came out on top. The 2.8 IS & non-IS were not compared though.

I've heard that the IS is as good or better but the non IS performs better with converters.

I sure appreciate <B>all</B> the responses. I'm wondering it the differences aren't even worth measuring... like a Ferrari is faster off the line but a Porsche corners better (or whatever). Still super performers regardless.

I did find one extensive test if anyone's interested. I think it convinced me to save $500 and skip the IS. This claims the non-IS is sharper wide open because of the reduced number of elements:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm

Interesting, I don't mean to be so gear-centered, I just want to purchased the right tool for the craft.

Thanks everyone!

Paul

Well theoretically it should be sharper, however i think the differences are neglectable.
I shoot with the 2.8 IS version and have always been impressed by its sharpness.

As I understand it, the non-IS version is slightly sharper in the lab. But for real life field work, there is very little practical difference between the two lenses. Ultimately, the major factors in purchasing either of the two are cost and the potential need for the IS.

I chose the IS version, as there are occasions when the IS has been very useful to me, primarily sports and weddings/portrait work. I have no problems recommmending that lens on sharpness alone.

I am thinking of buying the f4 IS this week. I have been convinced by the comparison at this site which I think is a good site. Check it out. You can cut to the chase and read the verdict at the end of each review.

http://www.photozone.de


Rick T