I'm buying a Canon 70D.
I plan to get a 35mm f/2 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.
What I'm hung up on is the 70-200mm.
Either the f/4 or f/2.8. There is about a $500 price difference. Is the 1.2 difference enough to justify the $500?
I mostly just shoot my kids in school performances, sports, etc (and of course our Disney trips about 3x a year!) and prefer natural light vs any flash. Many times I've been dissatisfied with how my previous lenses have performed indoors (I had a Sony A57 with the 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 and before that I shot with a Nikon D90 but can't remember the zoom lens long story short the D90 took a swim in a river and I jumped to Sony and have been dissatisfied.)
The f/4 is going to be an improvement over the previous ones, but I'm hesitant to go for it and maybe I should do the extra for the 2.8? Any thoughts/suggestions would be great thanks!
I plan to get a 35mm f/2 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.
What I'm hung up on is the 70-200mm.
Either the f/4 or f/2.8. There is about a $500 price difference. Is the 1.2 difference enough to justify the $500?
I mostly just shoot my kids in school performances, sports, etc (and of course our Disney trips about 3x a year!) and prefer natural light vs any flash. Many times I've been dissatisfied with how my previous lenses have performed indoors (I had a Sony A57 with the 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 and before that I shot with a Nikon D90 but can't remember the zoom lens long story short the D90 took a swim in a river and I jumped to Sony and have been dissatisfied.)
The f/4 is going to be an improvement over the previous ones, but I'm hesitant to go for it and maybe I should do the extra for the 2.8? Any thoughts/suggestions would be great thanks!