Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist


Quote Originally Posted by elmo_2006


My concern would be available lighting conditions as we tour the Vatican, The Coliseum and other sites such as museums etc.


The 17-xx would replace the 24-105 for those light limiting situations where a faster aperture would be required over the use of a flash however I will have my monopod with me.


In that case, I'd probably have to recommend against the 17-50mm non-VC, or at least remind you that the 24-105mm would still have the advantage in the situations you describe, as long as 24mm was wide enough. The 24-105mm has a 3-stop IS, meaning it's got a 2-stop advantage over f/2.8, as long as your subject(s) aren't moving. Especially if your subjects aren't moving, the ability with IS to use a longer shutter speed with a narrower aperture can be a real help for interiors such as you'll find at the Vatican, where those large chambers have substantial depth that you'll blur out shooting at f/2.8. The big, heavy 70-200 II can be a lot to carry, but I'm really glad I brought mine to China. I definitely think you'll want something longer than 50/55mm (105mm might be enough on a crop body, though). My initial thought was that the 70-200mm would be useful for those candid street shots - and it was - but in addition, it's great for detail shots of architecture, allowing you to capture some of the history of Italy in a different way.


Hmmmm, interesting point, definitely something to think about. Maybe the 500 smacks could be spent better somewhere else!