I have and shot with a Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L series without IS and it is spot on.
For action photos and the like you don't really need IS, especially only at 200mm. If you were talking about the 100-400mm f/4.0-5.6 L then the IS there is great. At 400mm you can shoot at 1/200s handheld and still get sharp photos - so IS helps there. But not needed for 200mm in my opinion.
By the way Canon do a 70-200mm f/2.8 L without IS for about £900. But I assume if the f/4.0 L IS is out of budget at £750... the f/2.8 will be well out of budget.
I have tried both the f/4.0 and f/2.8 70-200mm L lenses, but not a f/4.0 IS. I can honestly say the f/4.0 in my opinion is better (much lighter weight) for action photos as you don't need anything below f/4.0 (depth of view becomes too shallow and on a sunny day with f/4.0 you can get over 1/6400 so speed certainly not an issue either).
Obviously for portraits and what not people will find the f/2.8 of more value, but even so.... worth the money, not really. As for the IS as you asked, as I said with the f/4.0 you can get some mad quick shutter speeds anyway so IS becomes much less relevant.
__________________
Jason Moller
|