> YMMV Here's my take: When I want to travel light, I take the 17-35 2.8L, 50 1.4 and 100 2.8 macro. This setup is very flexible for different kinds of work - portrait, macro, scenery, low light. If I want to travel really light, either the 17-35 or the 50 make the trip.
Since I used the D30/D60 for the longest time, I don't have any lenses slower than 2.8 (D30/D60 AF really sucks and needs all the help a camera bag has to offer), so my only other option would be to take the 28-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L, which both add more bulk and weight to the setup. I can't imagine not having the 50 1.4. (Interestingly, I would probable make a profit if I ever sold the 1.4. I bought it in Hong Kong back in the good old days before Dubya took office and the US Dollar was still strong.) Anyways, most of this is true for the 1.8, there isn't really much of a difference. The 1.4 is 2/3 stops faster, better built than the 1.8 mk II, has FTM and is sharper - most prominently at f/1.8. But all in all just minor differences. Is it work the extra $$$? for me, no question here. (I've been burned one too many times with a lens that was just "good enough". I now buy lenses that allow for "room to grow" within reasonable budget.) $200 or $300 difference wasn't worth the mention (when compared to the price difference of a 75-300 and 70-200 2.8L). Lars -- .~. Lars Michael /V\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /(_)\ http://www.larsmichael.com/ ^^ ^^ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
