That being said, do you recommend just taking the 24-105mm f/4L IS and the 50mm f/1.4? I'm not sure how useful the 70-200mm f/4L IS will be, and despite how light of a telephoto it is, it still takes up space and is another thing I have to lug around. I also have the 17-40mm f/4L and the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro lenses (neither of which I was planning to take).
I find the 70-200mm range to be great for street candids. Here are a few examples from a trip to China:
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 70mm, 1/400 s, f/2.8, ISO 100
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 125
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, 1/200 s, f/5.6, ISO 100
I just called my renter's insurance company, and they told me that my camera gear is covered under my policy. But, the suggested I add a rider which details the equipment being covered, for ~$1 per $100 of coverage. The main advantage is that I won't have to pay the deductible ($250) on my renter's policy, incase something happens. What do you guys think?
Do you have that from them in writing? My homeowners policy covers cameras, too...but when you read the policy, you see coverage is only up to $1000. If you have comfirmation in writing that all your gear is covered to the full (ideally, replacement) value by your renters policy, and that the coverage applies in India, I'd say supplemental/rider coverage is not necessary if the only reason is to avoid the deductible in the unlikely event of a loss. But, be sure it's really covered by your renters policy.