dcg
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,991
- Reaction score
- 506
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.
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.
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.