A question that has been on my mind

[UmiKaibutsu]

If everyone were that responsible we wouldn't have had a mortgage collapse.

It takes money to make money. Business generally requires capital, thus we have lenders. If you have no camera but you could get a $300 loan @ 6% for a $300 Mamiya you saw online and had a shoot this week paying $400, what do you do? The question comes down to the skill of the photographer, which would establish his risk in this scenario. I would say he is a good risk.

Apple was recently given AA+ credit rating because they will be taking out a massive loan to make dividend payments. Credit is part of business.


Anyway, I was just daydreaming. Not so serious!

[neuroanatomist]

Also, I tend to shoot a lot of family functions and people, just rarely posting those here. Thus my interest in the 70-200 mm lenses.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is excellent for that sort of thing, on a FF camera. Does great for portraits and tight shots indoors, and is an excellent backyard/beach lens.

[Local Hero]

Do you think that IS in a 70-200 would help you more than expanding your range of primes? Perhaps the f2.8 version or do you prefer the compact lightweight f4 version for portability at the expense of 1 stop worth of aperture?

Thanks for the response. With regards to the 70-200 f/2.8 vs the f/4, I very much lean towards the f/4 line due to the size and weight. Yes it would be nice to have the extra stop for wedding and events that I work occasionally but I don't really have the need outside of that.

With regards to IS you have kind of got me thinking. I've heard and read how sharp the 70-200 f/4L IS is but I've never been unsatisfied with the one I have and I don't know how much benefit the IS would be for me. I tend to primary use the lens for portraits outside or with strobe lighting so I don't know how much I would gain with IS. I would probably get more out of investing in another lens. Thanks for helping we work this out!