My first IS lens was the Canon 75X300, my next will be the 100X400 soon.

Any aid to deter camera shake at slow speeds is important to me. When I was younger, I was able to squeeze off shots at 1/30 of a sec. with my Leica. No more. I'll take the help

IS is worth it, although companies drastically overcharge for it.

Actually yes and no. Image stabilization is not a necessity but it is a convenience so that I won't have to carry a tripod to every locale for a quick shot.

I have found that on longer lenses, like my 70-200 f/2.8 VR, the vibration reduction gives me that added comfort zone to work with more confidence and without a tripod. While shooting weddings, you need to get as much light as possible sometimes and can't always use your flash. This is another area where the VR really pays off. VR is expensive, like fast lenses, and only worth the cost if you are using your gear to make money.

Coolpix 8800 vs. 8400? I'd take the 8800 mostly because of the IS, not the bigger zoom.

For fast moving subjects, a tripod just will not do.

Purchased the Minolta A2 for this feature. Glad I waited as old guy shake is now gone from my pictures.

I have been able to capture sharp images with image stabilization (Canon 28-135 mm I.S.)that could not be captured using a non I.S. lens of similar telephoto zoom range

I am amazed at the handheld shots taken with my Panasonic FZ20 at longer focal lengths.

One of the features I long for, but cannot afford.

Now if only Canon would add chip stablization to their DSLR cameras...

I'm so impressed with the Minolta 4 mp that I soon plan to buy k-m A 2 with anti-shake function.

In fact some assignments call for "no flash" and this is one of the situations when it is important to have some stabilization when handhelding the equipment and still go for low shutter speeds without compromising aperture settings.

Yes, It's important to me, but not a driving factor in lens selection. With Canon, I prefer it, but will take the "L" glass if I can afford it instead. My EF 28-135mm is a great lens and has never disappointed me. I shoot digital only and like the assistance of the IS in low light situations.

If I need to shoot at slower shutter speeds I use a tripod which works just fine for me. I do not care for the greater complexity and potential repair costs of this type of equipment.

I own an Olympus C2100UZ and a Panasonic FZ1. They both have image stabilization. They both do a grand job of it (1/2 sec). I was able to take good images (4x6, not 16x20) handheld in the illuminated documents section of the J. Paul Getty museum with the Olympus because it has focus assist. There is very little light in that room. The FZ1 does equally well but needs more light.

Mainly use in intermediate telephotos, e.g. 70 - 400. Enables more flexibility and control of depth of field

I purchased the Canon 3.5 28 to 135 IS USM and the shots were just as bad as any other 3.5 canon lens.I shoot weddings mostly. I replaced it with a Tamron equivalent 2.8 and the results blew away the IS lens

I take allot of photos in an concert like environment dark with lots of subject lighting and I wish I had an IS lens the would give my 20d a greater opportunity to take even better shots. I find that my subjects are not still and this movement caused by me or my subject is even more noticeable. Suspect IS or anti shake would help here.

Although I don't own any VR lenses, I certainly lust after them. For now, I will benefit from the people selling their non-VR lenses at low prices so they can upgrade to the new VR lenses.

I have moved to a Panasonic Lumix 20 and can really see the benefit.

I used an Olympus C-2100 with image stabilization for several years and loved it. When I upgraded to a 4 megapixel camera, it did not have stabilization and it took me several weeks to get used to holding the camera steady again.

MY Canon tele w/IS is a great piece of technology. I use it weekly.

I have a Konica Minola A-2 digital camera with the anti shake feature I think it is the best thing since sliced bread as I don't always carry a tripod with me. It allowed me to take a sharp photo of the riseing moon hand held. great picture.

Image Stablization has allowed me to shoot at incredibly slow shutter speeds using both the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sigma 80-400 OS. At an effective 640 mm on the Sigma I can shoot handheld braced against a solid object like a tree at 1/15th of a second with moderately good results even at 8 by 10 size. Handheld at 1/125th no shake is visible even in extreme crops printed as 4 by 6's on standard kodak royal paper with color chemistry. Shooting with a set of legs mirror slap is reduced to a minor issue.

When I needed an medium level telephoto, I chose the more expensive Nikon 70-200VR over the less expensive 80-200mm in order to get the VR benefit. I have never regretted this decision. This is one of my most used lenses, and the results I get with it are fabulous!

I work with an 80-400 VR lens. I love it. But even with VR it doesn't mean you can just wave the camera around. You still have to plan your shots. My only complaint, I wish it had a faster lens. But my shot of a sprig of Goldenrod in an Alabama cotton field is enough to blow you away.

At age 75, Image Stabilization could be a great benifit for me. Prefer in camera body rather than in lens.

Low light photography is an option for me now with image stablization. It was difficult before because I needed a tripod. Now I can do indoor and outdoor low light work. I have a digital camers so I also have the ability to use white balance and high ISO settings to obtain better low light pictures.