Only need it for raiztlin. The Canon users will support me. Now to decide between 24-105 f/4L IS USM and 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM.

 

-----signature-----

So I just realized the 24-70 f/2.8L does not have IS. Is it just not viewed as a needed feature when you have a 2.8 aperture or have they just not made one? I was all ready to order it, but the lack of IS threw me off...

 

-----signature-----

Well in a perfect world you would always have ideal lighting and could always shoot wide open with a fast shutter so you wouldn't notice not having IS much, but in reality there are always times that you will stop down and would be able to take advantage of having IS. Personally i wouldn't mind giving up IS and i would consider packing a monopod or something to help if you have to stop down a lot.

 

-----signature-----

Makes sense.

Well, I've basically narrowed it down to:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens $1300
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens $1100


In terms of a good general purpose travel lens for an XSi, I think the EF-S 17-55 lens wins. But for some reason I'm really tempted to get the EF lens. Probably a mix of a few things: like the heavier duty construction, like the ability to use on a full-frame camera if I get one, like that I'm gaining a lens that reaches into a new focal range rather than an upgrade to my kit lens, and probably just a bit of marketing working on me and wanting the L lens.

I suck at these decisions...

 

-----signature-----

Ok, mandatory comment:


The reason you find Canons more intuitive, is that you're used to it. Both Nikon and Canon have excellent setups and its all a matter of what you're used to.


As for ergonomics, as I said, I like Nikons better, many do not. We're all different, and thats why there is a market for more then one manufacturer.


Ok, on towards your question:


I have a 17-55 f/2.8 and it is by far my most used lens. With that said, I really really want a 24-70 f/2.8.

The cons are;

1. It is alot more expencive (about twice the price)

2. It's almost double the weight.


As for IS, I don't have VR on my 17-55, and I don't miss it. However, 70mm is a bit more tele. In practice that means you're going from 1/60th of a second to 1/70th of a second as slowest shuttertime for handheld pictures.

 

-----signature-----

So I went for the 24-70.

I'm going to bring it and my 18-55 kit lens with me on the trip. Worst case, I ordered from Amazon and have 30 days to return the lens if it doesn't work out.

Mainly decided that I'd rather invest in a great lens that adds to my tools than to upgrade a tool I already have. Also the construction and weather proofing sold me on it since I tend to drag my camera to developing countries...

On Nikon vs Canon:
Intuitive was the wrong word. I had no problem figuring out how to do whatever I wanted on either brand's cameras. I just meant the Canon was set-up closest to how I would have designed camera controls. The Nikons are great and there are some things I'm jealous about in their lens line (Nikon 14-24), the Canons just fit me better.

 

-----signature-----

I love my 24-70L It is the lens I leave on my camera all the time.

 

-----signature-----

Well you lost me until you decided to stay with Canon

I recommend 2 lens as well, I have only 2 lens and I have never found a situation yet (although it will happen to me sooner or later), that I needed more then I had.
I carry my Canon 24-70 L 2.8 and my 70-200 L IS 2.8 (My workhorse), if you get 2 lens in that range you should me fine.
Although I am eyeing the Canon 100mm Macro 2.8 alot right now and I shall possess it!
Have fun on your trip I am envious to say the least!

 

-----signature-----