I'm trying to figure out what lens to buy this summer - Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L, or their 70-200 mm f/2.8L (with or without IS). After I buy this, my next purchase won't be for about another year - Summer '09. My current lenses are: 18-55mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon (kit lens) 35mm f/1.4L Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.4 Quantaray with macro 600-1000mm f/9.6-16 Quantaray The first three are my "carrying-around" lenses. However, with the 35mm prime, I don't think I've used my 18-55mm in about a year. I don't really specialize in any type of photography, though it seems that lately a preponderance of my photos are landscapes. But I also do people, coin photography (so need the long-lens macro, which I'll keep regardless), flowers, wide- and narrow-field astrophotography ... lots o' stuff. I will also (likely) be going to Yellowstone in the late fall for a geology field trip, and I'll also be going to Flagstaff (Arizona) and a few places around there (Sedona, Walnut Canyon, Meteor Crater, etc.) in October and possibly again next Spring, BEFORE I'll have money for another lens (after I buy one this summer). My current thinking is that, since I already have a very good short lens, that I should get the 70-200mm this summer and the 24-70 next summer. If I do that, I'm also not entirely sure if I want to get the IS or not. I'll have the cash because I'm being stimulated by Bush, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra weight for most of my uses. So I guess this boils down to two questions: 1) Does it sound like I should get the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm first? 2) If the latter, does it sound like I would really use the IS or not to justify the weight and price? Thanks!