[mjf0048@airimba.com]

I thought that some of the zooms that are L series that are just as good as the fixed lenes that ones that are rated 2.8 like the white ones and the 24-70. The only time I have used 17-40 when I was very close to something where there was not space to move backward when I was in the middle east in Petra. I do use my equipment quite often. The zoo would also be good practice for your camera. the 70-200 is good to use shooting from a moving boat and the 200mm is good once you are on land along with a 300mm to get closer shot. I have no ideal what you would use the 35mm lens for? Do you think I would be better off trading my 24-70 in for a 35mm lens or even the 17-40 for a 20mm lens? the 24-70 seems kind of heavy. The 24-70 use a lot of an every use lens of landscapes, nature, but the 17-40 I harely use as well as the 50mm lens. I guess I can leave some lenes at home and just bring 100mm, 200mm if is worth to purchase, 300mm and 70-200mm lens. Is a monopod necessary or is it better with a tripod since a tripod takes more time to set up? Sounds like the expesive equipment is not worth it. I usually don't spend over a grand for glass since that is out of my price range and you could also move in closer to get a better picture and the places I have been to in the last years the wildlife was close to you anyway so you did not need longer than a 70-200 in contrast to what birdsart says in his book. This is simply not the case in places like the amazon and Galapagous I have experienced. Take care and hope to hear from you soon.

Marc