« on: August 14, 2013, 09:24:47 AM »
I think you've explained yourself quite well.
From what you've said, the two lenses I mentioned appear to be excellent choices. Not having a 300, you would want to carry that 1.4 as well, for those times you'd want some extra reach. It still produces excellent image quality on the 70-200.
A number of people have suggested bringing along the 24-105, but, if it's at the expense of the 70-200, I'd talk you out of it. It's too much of an overlap with the 16-35 for the sacrifice of longer lengths, as well as the use of the 1.4. I took one with me on my trip, but used it even less than the 300. I didn't seem to miss the gap between 35 and 70, but perhaps that's because I seldom see things normally! Besides, you can always get those with your compact camera.
I've sold my 24-70/2.8 (first version) since I didn't use that focal lengths that often. When I shoot weddings I'm only using my 16-35 aswell as my 70-200. Then I have all the wide angle I need aswell as portrait and full body shots
I guess that when I will be shooting abroad, I will be using both wide angle in landscape, macro on flowers and small wildlife.. aswell as tele for portraits / panoramic shots etc.
The 24-105 is a nice lens,but it might be a better "go around-tourist"-lens and shooting lots of pictures
As you say, I can get "tourist"-shots in the 24-100 with my compact camera aswell.