I\'ve never been there but from that bunch, to cut it to two, I\'d take the 17-40 and 70-300L (100-400 might mean a lot more switching, at least for how I shoot getting down to 70mm on a tele-zoom is very nice on FF and 41mm-69mm kind is meaningless). Although 17-40 maybe is wider than needed? If it does 24-40mm better than the 24-105 then I would take the 17-40.
I\'ve never been there but from that bunch, to cut it to two, I\'d take the 17-40 and 70-300L (100-400 might mean a lot more switching, at least for how I shoot getting down to 70mm on a tele-zoom is very nice on FF and 41mm-69mm kind is meaningless).
Aug 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10900490 « Anyone Been to Antartica ? »
