wickidwombat said:
BozillaNZ said:
The op has some very valid point.
I just got back from Tahiti & Bora-Bora honeymoon last week, sort of like a once in life time trip really. I took all I had by the time, 17-40L for UWA, 50 1.4 for low light, 70-200 IS II for portait of my wife, 1Ds2 for stills, 50D (magic lantern rules!) for movie with underwater package. and a second hand beaten up 24-105L I got for fun.
Guess what, 90% of pictures came from the 24-105. When you are travelling, that single convenient lens mounted right on your camera is the most valuable one. Not the other $3000 big white lens which rests in the hotel room.
So, shooting is a different thing to talking. Sometimes they are even contradicting.
I carried my 70-200 around china for 3 weeks with my 5D2, 16-35 and 50 f1.4
I only used the 70-200 twice
once shooting a really cool play at night using a tripod
and the other on a boat cruise down the yangtze river i used a 2x tc with it on this too
the rest of the time I basically used the 16-35 or the 50 and the rest of my gear stayed in the hotel room
my wife pretty much just shot with the 24-105 and her 5Dmk2
Yes it was the same for me when I was out there. When I had my 70-200 on my 5DII I got some great shots. Unfortunately it wasnt wise to have it on there all the time. So most of my shots came from the 16-35, and in the end I was just happy shooting with my 50mm 1.4 as it was so light. And yes, you just shoot with what ever you have.
As already mentioned somewhere down in the replies, sometimes we talk about so much about more expensive lenses, thinking what you will be shooting, why you need this and that, but onthe field it is totally different and you quickly learn what is really needed. Which is a nice thing.
Less shooting lens charts at home with the 70-200 and more going out there with you 50mm.