I'd go for the IS version, hands down. Here's the effect of IS (taken with my 70-200 f4 IS lens, both at 200mm, 1/30 sec)


Without IS With IS


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x300/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.40/IMG_5F00_8152.JPG[/img][img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x300/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.40/IMG_5F00_8154.JPG[/img]


The effect of IS is I really don't have to worry about stabilizing my camera. That along with weather sealing gives you that "I don't have to worry about my lens, I can concentrate on what I'm shooting" feeling. [Y]


The IS version is also sharper and Weather-sealed (that was the reason I bought it instead of the non IS). Here are my two favorite photos from this lens:













I do have portrait shots with this lens but the subjects would not like me to post their pictures here. [N] And it IS (no pun intended) a fine portraiture lens, it just won't give you those stunning thin DoF portraits. They're not bad at all, though. It's not a specialist lens: It's good at macro, portraits, sports, and long landscapes, but it's not specialized for any of those tasks. That doesn't mean it doesn't do them well, efficiently, and relatively cheaply, though. In summary a great lens.


Good Luck!


brendan