> 2) Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L plus Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS with extender
> Neither of these options is remotely cheap, so I really want to make
> sure I get this right first time! I also don't want to be buying lenses
> again in 3 years or so when the 10D is old hat and I'm looking at a 16mp
> digital slr for $1500 :)
> On the one hand, I like the idea of a single lens, as I don't like
> changing lenses all the time (dust, extra weight, possibility of
> dropping one). This puts the 28-300 in a good light. But, it's a darn
> heavy lens to lug around *all* the time (for example, I'm doing candid
> shots at a wedding in December). And 3.5-5.6 isn't a particularly
> spectacular aperture in the scheme of things, although the IS gives you
> a couple of extra stops.
> On the other hand, the second option appeals because of the large
> aperture throughout the range - it'd give me 24-200 at F/2.8 and 140-400
> at F/5.6 with a 2x extender. But then I'd have to change lenses when I
> wanted to move up and down the range. And would I always have the right
> lens with me? I also like the fact that both these lenses are rated
> very highly for optical quality by people who use them, and the 70-200
> seems less prone to dust because of the rotational zoom action. The
> 24-70 would also give me a little extra space at the wide angle, but at
> the same time, it doesn't have the IS which I find so appealing.
> Finally, with things like weddings, I wouldn't have to lug the bulk of
> the longer lens around unless I thought I was going to need it.
> Does anybody have any comments on this decision, based on previous
> experience with any or all of the above kit?
> There is an option 3) Canon 24-70 L plus Canon 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 DO IS,
> more limited but a lot cheaper, if anybody has comments on the 70-300