kv0925

Stoopid Internet. Now I'm all conflicted. Skip this if you don't care about camera geek-speak. :)

I'm expecting a nice juicy tax return this year, and shortly after that I should get a very tidy year-end bonus from work. Most of all this will go into savings, of course, but we're agreed that we can each get a luxury or two that we want. The big thing I want is a very nice lens to go with my new very nice camera! I definitely want something super-sharp, fast-focusing, and long--I very much like nature and wildlife photography, so a good telephoto range is crucial.

I was pretty well settled on the Canon 70-200mm 4L, which is a decent focal length range and an L-series lens, which means nothing to most people but is worshipped as if a pantheon of deities by those who care. :) My only hesitations in considering that lens are that it's fairly large (read: more conspicuous and tougher to haul around), and has no image stabilization, a handy feature which can really extend a lens' ability to be handheld in lower light situations. So I was just poking around today, and came across the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO IS lens, which adds a lot more reach (up to a 480mm equivalent with my XT's 1.6x crop factor), throws in excellent image stabilization, and comes in a much smaller package. Cons: to achieve the shorter length, it uses a diffractive optical element (the DO in the name) which can produce some undesirable optical artifacts not present in the other lens. Also, the DO currently costs about twice as much, and the other lens ain't cheap to begin with! I'd love to have an L lens, but I know I'd really prefer the longer reach, smaller size, and image stabilization of the DO. So probably money will be the deciding factor--if I get less than I expect between the tax return and bonus, I'll get the 70-200, and if I get more (and can sell Heather on this being just about the last lens I need to buy ever), I'll go for the 70-300.

Whew! I guess I answered my own question. :)

Edit: I'll just edit this entry since no one cares anyway. :) After *more* reading, I think I'm just going to shoot for the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It's not an L lens, but it has the extra focal length and excellent IS, is actually a bit smaller than the 70-200 4L, and costs a bit less (and half of what the 70-300 DO costs). Yeah, I'll start with that, and then later when I have more money to play with I'll delve into L-series territory. :)