Am I being selfish and greedy

I recently upgraded my old DSLR and purchased a new 7d body coupled with a couple of lenses including the 17 - 55 f/2.8 and a 70 - 300 f/4 - 5.6.

When buying the new camera and lenses my wife was way more tolerant and accepting of the amount I spent than I expected her to be.

The problem is that my addiction with the 7d is compelling me to purchase another lens, this one being the 70 - 200 IS USM f/2.8 II...Problem is this lens will cost just over $3200 Australian. I just spent over $4000 on the body and other lenses only a few months ago, so am I being greedy now wanting a new L series lens?

My family and friends are more than happy with the pics I am currently taking, but I know they will be better with the L series lens. I am only a hobbyist / enthusiast when it comes to photography, it is not like I do it to earn an income.

( I forgot to mention that my wife also tolerates my other hobby / passion which is wakeboarding. Unfortunately this is far from a cheap sport and I have invested heaps of money on my boat, wakeboarding equipment, lease on a private lake and ongoing fuel costs etc without so much as a cross word from her )

Do I get my new 70-200 f/2.8 L series lens (and buy her some new jewellery as way of compensation), or hold fire and persevere with the existing 70-300 f/4 - 5.6 lens?

Exactly what lens is the 70-300? The 70-300 IS?

I think most people upgrade way too quickly, way before they've even got a proper handle on their current gear.

FYI the 70-200 photos will not automatically be better than the 70-300 ones. It depends on if/how the current equipment is holding you back.

I agree with phreeky.

Give it a go with what you got and when you got a good handle, then upgrade. You may realize you dont even need a long lens (like I did).

If you can afford it and she 'lets' you, then there's not really an issue. If you lie to her and do it without discussing the cost first I guarantee she will be pissed off and you'll screw yourself over for all future purchases.

If you can grab 70-200 II for a bargain then go for it. I wouldn't pay full price for it AU$3200 (or you can get it from DDphotographics for AU$2999). I'm actually asking my sister to get me this beauty (from overseas) for AU$2600 with Canon international warranty...and I should have it in the next couple of weeks, can't wait now...

Take your time. If you do not need it now, get it later and get your wife a nice present instead.

ALso why the is and m2? the non is way way cheaper, what would you use it for?

What are you going to use it for? It would probably be cheaper to keep the 70-300 and add prime, if suitable.

out of curiosity - if this is joint expenses - what does it mean to "let" you? I would expect that it is a joint decision.

i really don't understand the idea of buying you something and her something - that just spends more of the family money.

If you feel guilty and selfish and you see how you can get along without the newest and shiniest lens, then I don't understand why you would get it. Save for it. Get it second hand in 1-2 years (if you still want it after that)

That's just my take on things,

phreeky wrote in post #10214608
What are you going to use it for? It would probably be cheaper to keep the 70-300 and add prime, if suitable.

I shoot a lot of water sports, flowers, wildlife & travel shots. The 70-200 (if I get it) will be put to good use primarily for a combination of wakeboarding shots from my boat and travel shots whilst on holidays. My wife and I are travelling to Thailand later this year, then followed by China, Hawaii and Africa the following years. (This is why I want to make sure I have a couple of good lenses with me)

I am lucky that I don't need my wife's "permission"to buy things I want or need, nor does she need mine when she wants to buy things for herself. In fact my wife has a large number of expensive rings and bracelets that she has bought for herself over the years without any consultation with myself before doing so.

I suppose that I will just have a case of the "guilts" if I commit to a new 70 -200 f/2.8 L series lens when I already have an EF 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens that does a pretty good job.

Wakeboarding: if in good light the 70-300 IS is great
Flowers: neither would be great
Wildlife: again if in good light the 70-300 IS is good, and is longer than the 70-200. 70-200 better for low light
Travel shots: 70-300 IS is more compact, but the F/2.8 might be useful

Are you sure the 70-200 is actually better for you, or you want it just because it's a better lens generally?

Travel aside the 100-400 sounds more suitable.

I was reading the review on here about the 100 - 400 just the other day, and I also had a quick look at this lens in the shops just this week. In all honesty, I have also seriously thought about this lens as well as I would like the longer focal length for surfing shots when we go to Hawaii.

If I do buy a new lens do I trade aperture for focal length or go for the 2.8 with a 1.4 converter?

Relax, enjoy your equipment, and buy something nice for your wife/take her to a fancy restaurant/vacation/I don't know:p.

Think that even though she lets you, women will not always tell what they mean because "you need to notice that" and that could be a nasty backfire some day. (Not that i say that you would ruin your marriage, but hey! you got a nice set of lenses and camera be happy for it and enjoy it before searching for something else .)

IMO if you can't make such a decision then you probably shouldn't buy one. When you truly need one you'll know which one it is.

I dont' know what you (and your wife's) budget are like. For some of us, we'd have to save up a month's worth of pay to buy the 70-200 IS, not something we can buy on the whim. If that's not really big money to you and your wife and she has expensive tastes as well, then go out and buy it. Personally even if I made $4000 a month I'd probably wait a little bit and get used to the 7D before buying the 70-200 (or maybe not.. lol i dunno!)