Quote Originally Posted by hotsecretary


Well, I want a nice Portrait lens as I've been doing a lot of those lately... of my niece, g/f and dog.


And I've heard good things about the 70-200 for Portraits, plus I do like doing some Zoo Trips every once in a while.
Just not sure if the 2.8L IS is worth double the price it is for the 4L no IS.


Plus of course the walk around lens, hence the 24-70mm ..to replace the EF-S Lens.


And I also loved doing Wide Angle shots of various landscapes, buildings, etc. But that's a later on purchase on my list, more concerned with Portrait and Walk around Lens.. plus I like to shoot Night Club shots too, hence picking up a Flash in the next month.


So that's my predicament! I'm stuck wondering where to drop my $ first, hence the recent purchase of the 50mm as it was cheap and does the job for now for Portraits with "ugly bokeh"
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>


Your starter lens will do well on the wide end. If you like portraits, there are lots to choose from. I'd suggest going to a store where you can try the 70-200 in both apertures - the f/2.8 is heavy, and for that reason my girlfriend prefers the f/4 version. Then, take an honest look at your shutter speeds in pictures you've taken. "Do the math" to see what they'd be if you were shooting at f/4, or perhaps at f/2.8 (if you spend the big bucks). If they're in the 1/112th (assuming you were shooting closer to 70mm focal length) to 1/320th (closer to 200mm focal length, or that's what you envision for the shot) range or faster, you're likely OK without IS. If they're more along the lines of 1/15th to 1/40th, you'll need IS to avoid shaky pictures (if your subjects can even keep still).