*I have posted an idential thread in the Lens Section. I am looking for advice from both spectrums of the board, and I apologize if I have broken the rules.
I have some cash saved for a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L telephoto lens. I've got almost enough and I look at my savings and think, "Christ, what a lot of money." It has taken me a very long time to save this money and now that I am near my goal, I am reluctant to part with it all for just one lens.
I believe that it's the photographer, not the gear, that takes a great picture. Currently, I shoot with a 5 year old Rebel XT and a 70-300 USM IS 4.5-5.6. About 90% of my images are taken with my 70-300. There are many examples of images taken with this gear on my website, so check it out, if you discern the 70-300 + Rebel XT to be an inferior setup. However, if a new lens is going to help me to evolve into a more experienced photographer, I look at the price tag as an investment into my skill level as an artist.
No, my gear is not the greatest. But - my 300 has almost as much reach as the 400, and the same maximum aperture range. Is that 400 really going to improve my work? And to what extent? Will it really assist in furthering my skill and experience in photography?
I am thinking that a better investment would be a quick trip based around wildlife photography. With all this money, I could get out and shoot some great wildlife pictures to add to my portfolio!! Alaska for grizzlies, salmon and eagles, or the Great Bear Rainforest for Kermodes, whale watching trips up the coast...the possibilites go on.
So basically it all boils down to: What is the richer experience? A photography trip with my Rebel and 70-300, or a 100-400 telephoto lens?
Jeez, I could really use a vacation...