taking a cruise down to bermuda with my daughter.

Struggling with the thought of bringing both the 30D and Lumix p&s. Obviously most of the shots I would take would be snapshot-ish so the p&s would do fine.

On the other hand, I would imagine there may be opptys for some great scenic shots etc. I'm just not sure I want to be burdened with carrying the equipment and worrying about it.

I guess this is a personal decision, so I'm just looking for feedback. Thanks

if you see a beautiful shot, you'd regret not bringing the equipment more so than if you didn't see a shot and brought all the equipment, I think.

The folks here convinced me to bring the SLR and the P&S was a given. P&S never got used, and the SLR got plenty of use.

Going on a cruise to the Greek Isles, Istanbul, Naples and Rome next week. Taking the 40D, and trying to decide which of the 12-24/4 Tokina, 17-55/2.8 Canon, and 24-105/4 Canon to take. I might just take all three and deal with the weight.

You'll need the wide for sure. The 2.8IS standard zoom will also get some use. The 24-105 I think is the outlier. Better range and also has IS, but slower, and half it's range is already spoken for. I have a feeling you'll need the wide more than the telephoto. Zoom with your feet.

a photo op or an opportunity to spend time with your daughter. I find these are mutually exclusive unless your daughter is into photography.

If you decide to bring the SLR, then toting the P&S is a no-brainer...not so the other way.

The tokina is solid, reliable, takes relatively sharp images and is pretty decent at focusing speeds. For the price, I really can't ask much more of my lens.

What I'm debating as well is whether I actually need to own all three of these lenses. I was doing just fine with the 12-24 and 24-105 but I went and bought the 17-55/2.8 because I was disappointed in the low-light shots I was getting from the two f/4 lenses, even with a flash. I used the 17-55 at a couple of recent weddings and the results were a bit better, though I kind of expected even better results. However, I think I'm going to chalk this all up to user error/learning curve for now as 2.8 should really be much better than 4.0 in low light than I have seen in the pics as proof.

Some suggested I can ditch the 24-10 of this group, but I don't think I can do that as then I'd have nothing at all to shoot between 55-100, a pretty critical range.

As for long term...I think you need to decide between the 17-55 or 24-70 if you want an f2.8 normal zoom, and put a telephoto on a second body for event work (70-200). This covers the 70+ range, only in another lens.

The 24-105 is a do-it-all lens, but it makes a compromise you're aware of for the sake of convenience.

I need 2.8 maybe 5% of the time or less. And even then, I'm generally not shooting for things I would frame on a wall. To me, it doesn't make sense to give up the 24-105 in favor of a faster, but heavier and shorter lens without IS. It's really only indoor events with moving people that I feel the 24-105 and 12-24 are too slow. And I think what I've found out is that for those situations, even the 2.8 isn't really fast enough to be able to shoot without a good flash. If I were a wedding photog, I'd try to fix this with some fast primes. But, I don't make $ with my pictures to support this habit, so I think I need to keep my quiver practical.

The current debate in my head is this: Is the 17-55 wide enough to warrant giving up the 12-24? I'm going to bring both on this vacation and see how often I really need the 12-17 range. If the 12-24 doesn't come out of the bag a lot, I might just give it up.

Earlier you mentioned wedding work, but now you're saying it's insignificant, as it doesn't bring in $$. So f2.8 really doesn't seem justified and the extra range on the 24-105 is preferred.

That's fine, but why keep the 17-55? For the wider angle it offers? The 12-24 does that...better.

As for f2.8 being fast enough and shooting with primes, you're right, f2.8 isn't all that fast, but that's the best that we'll get with a zoom. Shooting a wedding without a normal range zoom though...tough. I'll switch over to primes every now and again, and I'll get some really nice shots with them, but I've yet to ween myself away from a zoom. I'd estimate 70% or more of my pictures will come out of a 24-70 when shooting a wedding.

It just so happened that I had two weddings (a friend and a cousin) within a month of each other. Also, going to Rome on Friday and hope to get a bunch of night time shots like I got in Montreal. So, with three such occasions bunched up, I talked myself into the 2.8. But, walking around in daylight, I would probably opt for the 12-24 or 24-105 over this lens. I'll probably keep it, just to have the 2.8 option in my bag. What I really need is a 10-200/2.8L IS. Can we get that?

been to Italy twice, the way they cram those huge buildings in small squares will force you to go wide.

It's really a tough one on the other two. IS is nice for low light, but you might be able to do just as well going wide open on the 2.8.

I had a 50 1.4 and that was a pretty big difference between that and the f 3.5 / f 4 of the other lenses I had.

Are you planning on doing a monopod etc all, if so go just 17-55 2.8 you'll rarely shoot anything longer than 50mm.

both times to Italy.

unless you do that on the job...then it might cost you a few paychecks. :-)