I am going to be doing some Europian city travelling but weight is a big consideration due to my back and the fact that we are only using carry-on luggage so camera gear must be kept down in size and weight.
Using a 20D, will the 17-85 mm IS cover most of what I would want to shoot or is a wider lens needed as well - say the 10-22 mm S lens? I should add that I have walked about cities taking photograpsh (for myself and for others) since the 70s when I would often use 24mm and occasionally 21mm or 20mm lens. When I had both a 28 mm and a 24mm len set with me, I would typpically split the use of the len set about 50:50 but that was then and using slide film where I thought 30 shots or so a day was a lot!
Should I loan a Rebel XT to save more weight.
My back can be a major problem with weights over 4-5 pounds on my shoulder. (Terrible muscle spasm in spite of specific exercises)
Ideas, help, advice?
I went to the UK in the spring with my 20D and the 17-85 IS. (I also brought a light tripod and a 70-200 f/4L, but not for walk around.) I found the 20D/17-85 combination worked great in the cities. I never wanted for a wider lens. Occasionally, I switched to the tele zoom, but I needed the tripod to do that effectively since it is not IS. If I had to go again (and I probably do) I would take only the 20D and the 17-85. The weight savings using a Rebel XT is quite negligable. That wouldn't make sense to me.
If you are into really exagerated perspective images, you might want to haul along the 10-22, but I don't consider that "walk-around" technique. This lens takes planning to get good compositions - not really effective for "grab" shots typical of street photography.
Hope that helps.