dakkon76
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 39
- Location
- Eastern Washington
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
So, I just bought my first DSLR (XSi) and had gotten the 70-200mm f/4L - the cheapest $600 version without IS.
I used it for about 50 or so shots and liked the focal length but didn't like that quite a few of my hand held shots were coming out blurry. Secondly, I want the option of putting a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on it...
So, I took the lens back and thought I'd wait until I could afford the 2.8 IS version at about $1700. Now that I'm thinking about it though, that just seems like a huge amount of money for someone as new as me to dump on a lens when I really don't know what I'm doing yet!
I want the lens for outdoor nature shots and perhaps some portraits and pics of my dog - no sports or dimly lit indoor events are in my future.
So, now that I'm just stuck with my kit lens and my 100mm macro (which I love!!) I'm having some remorse about taking my 70-200mm back and I'm just not sure I want to shell out $1700 for the ultimate lens right now. Did I need more practice before I took the other one back? I mainly only used it on overcast days because the weather was so bad out the week I bought it. I know I won't lose much when I decide to upgrade from the f/4 if I end up getting it, but is it enough for what I want? Will I get more used to taking steady shots?
I can afford the $1700 one, but it would pretty much break my budget for anything else I want to buy in the next few months - lots of backpacking gear mainly - which is a "need" if I want to do overnight trips this spring/summer... something I've really been looking forward to!
What should I do? Give me some therapy!
P.S. - my girlfriend had to remind me that I'm brand spanking new to this, and that I'm not a professional photographer... nor do I ever intend to be...
I used it for about 50 or so shots and liked the focal length but didn't like that quite a few of my hand held shots were coming out blurry. Secondly, I want the option of putting a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on it...
So, I took the lens back and thought I'd wait until I could afford the 2.8 IS version at about $1700. Now that I'm thinking about it though, that just seems like a huge amount of money for someone as new as me to dump on a lens when I really don't know what I'm doing yet!
I want the lens for outdoor nature shots and perhaps some portraits and pics of my dog - no sports or dimly lit indoor events are in my future.
So, now that I'm just stuck with my kit lens and my 100mm macro (which I love!!) I'm having some remorse about taking my 70-200mm back and I'm just not sure I want to shell out $1700 for the ultimate lens right now. Did I need more practice before I took the other one back? I mainly only used it on overcast days because the weather was so bad out the week I bought it. I know I won't lose much when I decide to upgrade from the f/4 if I end up getting it, but is it enough for what I want? Will I get more used to taking steady shots?
I can afford the $1700 one, but it would pretty much break my budget for anything else I want to buy in the next few months - lots of backpacking gear mainly - which is a "need" if I want to do overnight trips this spring/summer... something I've really been looking forward to!
What should I do? Give me some therapy!
P.S. - my girlfriend had to remind me that I'm brand spanking new to this, and that I'm not a professional photographer... nor do I ever intend to be...
Last edited: