> >Hey George, I've already thought about all that, I also feel I >will regret getting rid of it. I really really like it I terms >of IQ. >But let me give you another view. I don't shoot just for fun. >Half of my shots are family photos. For example, I went the >other day with my son (1y4m) at a huge playground which was >heavily Xmas themed. It was out of the question for me to >carry the 24-70 in there (lots of people plus keeping an eye >on a constantly running little devil). I used the 85 instead, >which did a pretty decent job considering the FL limitations. >I would have used the 24-85 if that was my mid zoom. >Now, owning TWO zooms with the same length coverage, while >owning a total of 4 lenses, now that would be a world's first, >wouldn't it?
No harm in being first!
Ultimately it is you that you must please. That's how I look at it. It's good to have a lightweight alternative though, for instance I have a 55-200 AF-S VR DX for when I want to go light. It just comes down to affordability. Obviously if money was not the issue, we'd all have huge collections and who cares if there are multiple overlaps?