Everyone wants to get better, they may even find success in photography where they can leave a secure career, but for the rest of us not quite ready to take the plunge is it wrong to buy the best of gear because we can afford to?
I want IQ better than my Tamron 70-300 VC. Faster AF and I want to put good glass in front of my 7D. I want to shoot portraits, and editorial stuff coupled with it being a walk about street type longish focal length.
For me the options were the 70-200 f4, then I went up to the f4 IS to the point where I've just said to myself I'm going to get the 2.8L IS II. Not because I'm buying it for the sake of it. I want to produce images of the best quality.
I have a few indoor functions to photograph in the coming autumn months (Scotland) so I reckon the 2.8 IS will help out there.
I've read so many times its the best there is, so why not?
When I was 18 I bought a Gibson Les Paul Standard. My guitar skills increased so much that within 4 weeks I had learned the whole Appetite for Destruction album by Guns n Roses. I've always believed if you want to be your best you use the best of gear. Something I've read to the contrary with photography, but just wanted to get your opinion as seasoned pro's