01-16-2011, 12:59 PM
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1295029078' post='5509']
I spend a year in India in 2004/2005. On film I used a 20-35 and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. My midrange lens (28-105) saw almost no usage. The UWA came handy for all thosem agificent buildings, congested streets and general reportage. The 70-200 worked wonders for the inumerable portrait opportunities. It even proved long enough for a tiger shot from an elephant(yes we were close).
I suggest you take the 10-22 and the 70-200 f/4 (for its better sealing, India can be very dusty/humid/wet)
Add a 50mm 1.8 or a 28/1.8 for low light. If you need midrange, take the 18-55 simply because its light and doesnt bother you even when you use it rarely.[/quote]
I never thought about that view. Thanks for offering it. I'll consider it. After all, light weight is indeed a very important parameter.
I spend a year in India in 2004/2005. On film I used a 20-35 and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. My midrange lens (28-105) saw almost no usage. The UWA came handy for all thosem agificent buildings, congested streets and general reportage. The 70-200 worked wonders for the inumerable portrait opportunities. It even proved long enough for a tiger shot from an elephant(yes we were close).
I suggest you take the 10-22 and the 70-200 f/4 (for its better sealing, India can be very dusty/humid/wet)
Add a 50mm 1.8 or a 28/1.8 for low light. If you need midrange, take the 18-55 simply because its light and doesnt bother you even when you use it rarely.[/quote]
I never thought about that view. Thanks for offering it. I'll consider it. After all, light weight is indeed a very important parameter.