Originally Posted by nukaidee

I just came back from my vacation around portland / seattle, I carried a 28 f/2.8 and a 70-210 f/4. I was expecting to shoot alot indoors in lower lighting and animals at the wildlife trek. I would have to say I don't miss that big gap between 28-70 much, although I actually wished I had something wider than the 28. (Body is a 1.6 cropper) However, I must say that as a "traveller" even a f/4 seems slow in alot of occasions, esp in telephoto. If budget wasn't an issue and I could afford more than the 15$ I paid for my 28 f/2.8 I would probably get a sigma 20mm 1.8 or something and try to find a 70-200 f/2.8.

just my 2c

70-200 is probably the last lens I would want while traveling. It is huge, heavy, and unless you are only shooting portraits, I think it would be very difficult to get a lot of shots you want.

Originally Posted by Dragicon

70-200 is probably the last lens I would want while traveling. It is huge, heavy, and unless you are only shooting portraits, I think it would be very difficult to get a lot of shots you want.

I disagree on that, I would love to have a 70-200 on my next trip to Europe, would make life pretty easy when I revisit a couple of the cathedrals and castles that I would like to go back to. The massive areas around the castle that are cleared would be perfect to setup in and take shots of various parts of the structure.