Apparently, recruitment for travel abroad this summer is going swimmingly. This means that I’ll probably be teaching in London beginning in June. Wow. That seriously rocks. We only have about fifteen slots available, so if you want to go, you need to commit soon. This news also means that I need to get busy planning.

Part of that planning entails camera gear. This is a once-in-a-lifetime trip: I’ll be in England for five weeks, living near the British Museum and having the opportunity to travel every weekend. The last time I was in London, I had an old Sony digital camera — one that saved images to floppy disks, if you can imagine. The photos were terrible, and I promised myself that if I ever went back, I’d have a good camera. I would have been better off with a disposable. Well, now I have a pretty damn good kit, but I’d like to add to it before I go.

While it would be perfect to be able to get a whole new kit, complete with the 5D Mark II and a couple of L lenses, the likelihood of that happening is about as small as the US economy getting back on it feet in 2009. I need to be happy with the 30D (a perfectly good camera) and a new lens — perhaps my first in the L series. I could seriously consider the over $4K it would take to by a new kit if I had regular photography gigs, but that hasn’t materialized. Just a couple of weddings would do it. I know I have a wedding coming up in October, but shooting that will be an expense, since it’s for friends in Las Vegas. Anyway, I might have the budget for a new lens. Now, what should it be?

I originally thought a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM would be the best choice. The fast 2.8 is attractive, as is the pretty good reach of this zoom. With the 30D 1.6 crop, I’d get 320mm with this lens. The reviews of this lens are excellent, but it has three issues that would preclude me from taking it to England: the price, the weight, and the size. The non-IS version has these same drawbacks, though it is five bills cheaper at about $1.2K. I wonder if I need the f/2.8? The reviews of the entry-level Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM are also very favorable. More than likely, the choice out of this family of lenses will be between the f/4 flavors. Then, the decision centers around to-IS or not-to-IS. But, I have to say: $600 is a lot more attractive than $1600, or even $1200.

I have always been in love with the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens. It takes stunning photos: the bokeh and focus have no match, in my opinion. Just spend a bit of time perusing the Flickr group — and the user reviews are just as stellar. The 35mm L is a compact and fast lens, perfect for carrying around all day in London. It’s wide enough to get some great landscapes and fast enough to give me that clarity and rich detail for close-ups in St. Pauls. And, this lens would also be great for weddings and portraits when I get back from England. However, it does not have that telephoto reach that I’ll likely want in the city and even in the museums.

Giles recently purchased a Nikon 100-300mm that he really likes. Canon has a similar lens: the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. Yes, it has reach, but not too much else. There’s a 70-300mm flavor, but that’s approaching the price of the entry-level 70-200mm L above. I just don’t think these are an option, especially after seeing some sample images.

There’s also the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. This, coupled with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM would allow me to leave my 50mm and 85mm at home. These two lenses together would run about the same price as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Now, I’m starting to get pricey, but having two complimentary L lenses might be worth it.

Opinions? What am I forgetting? What is your experience? Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.