Quote:
Originally Posted by Steggy 
For a zoom lens, i would think IS would be extremely valuable. I've been told time and time again from photographers how IS has saved so many shots for them.
I think you're right, and at this point I've pretty much convinced myself to pay the extra cash for the 70-200mm f/4 IS. If I get the non-IS version I'll always be wishing I had it, and the prime is probably a little too specialized for me at this point. I've not seen anyone that regretted buying this lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek
Even so, if it's something you do often, the more zoom the better. With my aforementioned setup I couldn't get in close enough to the zebras on my last outing. Some of the enclosures at the zoo can be huge.
It's always a better use of money to be realistic about your shooting habits though. Spend the money where you'll use it the most.
It's always a better use of money to be realistic about your shooting habits though. Spend the money where you'll use it the most.
Yeah, for that reason I think I'm best going with the above. Should give me some good versatility in a package that's not too huge/heavy. If the reviews for the upcoming Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC lens are good I'll go with that and have 2 lenses that should compliment each other nicely.
I do have some interest in macro photography as well, so at some point in the future I may look at the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, which hopefully would cause me not too miss the Canon 200mm f/2.8 too badly. The Sigma has great reviews, is cheaper than the canon, gives me macro, and at 150mm is probably a little more useful on a crop body than the 200mm.
