This lens is wonderful. I'm often shooting with my friend who owns this lens and the IQ is superb. We were doing some street/candid shots, horse parkour and portrait work - just amazing lens. For indoor shot I would prefer 2.8 non stabilized version or a 135 f/2 prime (to par with my 85 f/1.8 ). But for general outside usage it's just great.
<quote>So you have an opinion on which option looks nicer and have decided to give bad Karma to prove how right you are. Was that what Karma was designed for and does that make this a better place to visit?</quote>
What on earth makes you think I gave bad karma - I certainly didn't!
I would never smite someone for a photo I didn't like - I am over 12! (by a few decades....)
I would only give out bad Karma for unprovoked Ad Hominem attacks - like the one you just did on me (except I will be restrained in this case....)
I don't mind the edit of the tatty flag pic tbh. No skin off my nose, we all have our preferred ways of editing images. I've not really used photoshop lately, it's been all Lightroom 3, now with a dash of messing around with the Lightroom 4 beta.
Go for it, it's probably the best value L lens you can get.
I would like more L lenses, but can't afford any at the moment. My Uncle has a 400mm or 500mm L lens along with a 7D. I'm not at all jealous.