Mmmmmm... I wasn't going to post any new journal entries, but I'm looking at lenses online, and I kind of want one. Or two or three.

Here's the dilemma:

I could use a dedicated macro lens for work - those boring photos that dA never sees. I don't get paid for my photography so it's not like I'll earn back the cost of the lens, but I do have to shoot lots of small fossils for my research (i.e. titchy bird bones). I had been using a 100mm f/2.8, but Alex had paid for it and took it with him. He doesn't know how to use it, so it's a serious waste of nice glass. I'm fairly confident I'm getting the best shots I can out of the 18-55 kit lens I have, and they're okay but not what they ought to be. If I went with a macro I'd get the 50mm f/2.5, because I do occasionally have to shoot bigger fossils and I need to be able to get them in the frame with the lighting/stand setup I have available. It'd also be nice to have in the field, although the kit lens has been sufficient up till now.

However, I would looooooooooove a nice telephoto lens. The other day I went out to some local wetlands at dusk and my lens really wasn't cutting it. Right now I have the cheapest Canon-brand lens out there. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten some nice photos, but it is what it is, and it has some pretty severe limitations. Cost and weight are factors, and I'm thinking my best bet is the 70-200mm f/4L - without IS, because that doubles the cost. The f/2.8 would be better, but I definitely don't have the money for that. There's also the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. It has a greater zoom than the 70-200 as well as the IS, but it is definitely NOT an L-series lens. I suspect the focus starts to go soft much past the 200mm range, and it's basically the lens I have now plus IS. The L-series will also hold its value better if I decide to resell down the road. But is 200mm enough for wildlife photography? Would IS be that much more helpful? I'd really like to be able to shoot birds, and 200mm is kind of pushing it.

Of course, this begs another question: Am I even good enough as a photographer to justify dropping the cash on a nice telephoto lens? I kind of doubt it - as my uncle says, a man who buys a camera becomes a photographer; a man who buys a piano becomes a man who owns a piano. If I buy a macro lens I know I know how to use it. If I get an L-series lens and can't get a decent photo I'm going crawl in a hole and cry by myself. The thing is, I have some awesome trips lined up and I don't want to be kicking myself for not having the right gear.

I need to move fast because either way I want the lens before I take off in 10 days. Any input would be greatly appreciated.