Upload & Sell: Off
I'm about the embark on a trip to Peru and I'm toying with an idea that's putting me outside of my comfort zone--going without the trusty 24-105. My original plan was to take a 24-105, Sigma 50mm 1.4, and 70-200 F/4 IS, but the overlap between the 24-105 and the 70-200's got me reconsidering all the redundant weight I'd be carrying (in addition to traveling within and between cities, I'll be going on a 4 day trek to Machu Pichu).
Now, though, I'm toying with picking up a 17-40 before I go to get some ultra wide-angled goodness, and leave the 24-105 at home. I'm thinking the perspective distortion and feeling of depth that it can give would be really cool for the ruins we'll see and the trek around the mountains in general. So I'd have the 17-40 for wide-normal shots, the 50 for low-light, and the 70-200 as a telephoto/people lens. I've never used an ultra wide before, though, so this is all speculation.
OR, I could grab a 17-40 and leave the 70-200 at home, keeping the 24-105 on for most things.
Anyway, I'm shooting with a 5Dc, and I like the idea of grabbing a 17-40 and leaving the 24-105 at home, but the idea of traveling without a "normal" zoom lens just kinda puts me on edge. Thoughts from the crowd? Blasphemy!?