I do have a tripod, Giottos w/Manfrotto 486rc2 head - it's not bad, servicable.


I can live with the f/4 zooms b/c most of the stuff I do with the zooms are out doors with decent to good lighting (day at the park, zoo, amusement park, bbq - stuff like that). I agree with your point about adding fast primes - hence the though behind getting the 135 mm f/2 L. I figure I will at some point also get the 85 mm f/1.8 and maybe even a wider on like the 35 mm f/1.4 L or the 28 mm f/1.8. Indoors I figure I will be able to foot zoom most of the time.


I also agree 135 mm is a little long indoors (that's where the 85 and 35 come in - but much farther down the road, can live with the nifty fifty for now). If/when I do get the 135 mm it will be primarily for my daughter's dance stuff and hopefully down the road some indoor sports - especially when she is able to move really fast.


Right now, taking into consideration my daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments


Clark