Am I Nutso or does this seem sane?

[szrimaging]

<p>So, just checking to see if I don't sound a little nuts on my current plan.</p>

<p>Seeing as how I never use it, I am going to sell my Panasonic LX3 and just use the camera on my smartphone for snap shots. I was never satisfied with the shots from the LX3, and didn't really carry it. I prefer to either shot my phone for snaps or DSLRs for serious/print work/clients.</p>

<p>Now then, part 1 of my sanity check. I think I am going to sell my 70-200 f2.8 HSMII Sigma. Optically, the thing is awesome. But, it's weight sees me now leaving it behind in favor of the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR Nikkor. What I am getting is a bit of an uptick in portrait work, and that is where I want to start concentrating on. So, to replace the 70-200 I am debating an 85mm f1.4 (Nikkor or Zeiss, undecided).</p>

<p>Sanity check part 2, is this leaves me without a high quality portable setup for lightweight travel. When flying out west to ski, I like to pack really light, so am I going to be missing that small compact system and have to buy either m4/3 or a Fuji X100? Pretty sure I can figure out carrying a two lens and one body kit on the motorcycle, so this is no issue.</p>

<p>So, does my plan seem solid, or do I seem slightly nuts?</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>You seem slightly nuts, but alas, most of us are...</p>

<p>Which DSLR do you have? I carry mine with me everywhere...but that's just me. I also carry a crappy point and shoot that lives in my car for happy snaps and for fleeting moments that don't allow me to get my DSLR together.</p>

<p>As for either of the 85mm f/1.4's from Nikon...(I have the "D")... it's phenomenal and one of three lenses I grab for portrait work. Not sure if it's the right lens for you because I don'r know if you shoot FX or DX. Personally I don't like my 85mm f/1.4 on DX...it just doesn't work well for my style and I refer a 50mm f/1.4 for this situation.</p>

<p>The 70-300mm VR is a great carry-around long zoom and I recommend it to just about everyone in the market for such a lens. I'm not sure it'll replace the 70-200mm, but due to weight you may get more use out of the 70-300mm.</p>

<p>Rather than an m4/3 system, why not a Canon G12 or Nikon P7000? I'm still not sold on m4/3 since the lenses make the system not-so-compact. I'd rather have a D3100/18-55 for about the same price as an m4/3 system.</p>

<p>Hope this helps and isn't just more ammo that we're all nuts!</p>

<p>RS</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Lol, pretty sure any of us who become gear hoarders/traders are slightly bonkers.</p>

<p>I only drive a car 50% of the time, ride a motorcycle the rest. So I just never got in the habit of carrying it. But my phone is always with me, so it does get pulled out often for photos.</p>

<p>As for cameras, currently it's a D7000 and D200. Hopefully next summer I'll sell the D200 and move into an FX body for portraits and wide angle work. Currently I use the 70-200 at about the 80-100mm range for portraits. I just like the way the background handles when using that length of lens. I'm not in a studio, but on location, usually outdoors.</p>

<p>The rest of the kit is: 20mm Voigtlander, 35mm DX Nikkor, 50mm f1.8D Nikkor and 55mm Micro Pre-Ai (converted) f3.5 Nikkor. Of those, the 35mm sees the most use, followed by the 20mm, then the 55mm then the 50mm. I honestly just don't seem to like 50mm on DX as much as I did on FX.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>M4/3 is the answer to all your problems, or at least it was to mine. But, when I hit the events this summer, it's back to the Nikon d300 and two fairly heavy zooms. Not ready to fully trust the M4/3 at high ISO. Besides, there is a certain self image to maintain and the D300 just barely qualifies as a pro looking camera.</p>

[jack_fisher1]

<p>Zach,<br>

If you are into film, this may sound nuts to some, but have you seen or tried the Olympus Stylus Zoom 80? They are small, very low cost, take film, and do a fine job. I acquired two quite by accident, tried them out, and came up with some amazing stuff. Good lenses, (28-80), nice zoom, compact (can wear on the belt), built in flash etc. Since I have two of them, I might be persuaded to part with one. </p>

<p>Jack</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>I stopped shooting film due to workflow. I have an old Minolta that I absolutely love the 50mm on. Paired with some 125PX developed in Tmax, that camera was unstoppable.</p>

<p>But, film has become such a hassle. You have to wait for development, then scan, and then do post work without some of the nifty controls I get from RAW files. That said, I don't know if some of the newer scanning programs take care of that last issue. Sadly, I am an instant gratification kind of kid. Although I do miss the darkroom. Not so much film development, but print making. There is just something about real silver prints vs ink jets that feels better.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Well, about the cellphone... you use it and seem OK with it. So, uhm.... duh!<br>

I hate my cellphone's camera. I'll stick to my compact. But you make your case clear. Nothing nuts about it.<br>

As for the lens. Yeah. I can understand. Smaller, lighter lenses just have their place. For the 85mm, do consider also the new Sigma, which gets tested very favourably. Or, if manual focus is OK, get a 105 f/2.5. It's just a spectacular lens for portraits, and costs fairly little. A bit long on DX, but epic quality.</p>

 

[szrimaging]

<p>I am having a bit of a loss of love for Sigma, not sure I still trust them. They basically told me that their lenses aren't supposed to be used below freezing, I live in Northern Michigan and shoot skiing...yeah.....<br>

I'll take a look at that 105. I usually manual focus portraits and two of my lenses are only manual focus. If it is as good/low priced as you claim, I may just add one anyways!</p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>No comment on your Nutso. Just curious how much you want for the LX3?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...it's weight sees me now leaving it behind in favor of the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR Nikkor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun may have a relevant and interesting anecdote to share, from his recent trip to the Galapagos.</p>

[Two23]

<p>You didn't say what Nikon body you are using. Makes a difference what lenses to choose, doesn't it? As for Sigma lenses in the cold, how cold are you talking? I've used my Sigma lenses in temps down to 38 below zero. I am a night shooter out here in the Dakotas and Minnesota and much of the time zero F is as warm as it gets. Never had a problem. I would pick the Sigma 85mm f1.4 over any of the Nikons any day, except I really don't know what I'd do with one. I don't buy gear I don't have an established need for. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Kent, it started at somewhere in the -5F range and has since gotten progressively worse. This last winter on days that were in the 20s, it stopped auto-focusing. I asked Sigma, they said the lens is not rated to work below freezing. Which bothers me because it is sold as a PRO lens. I only had the D200 and N80 at the time, neither would drive it when the lens was cold, even with the body being completely warm. I haven't mounted it on the D7000 yet to test it.</p>

<p>That said, the 70-200 Sigma is a great portrait lens, and does really well on a tripod. If it hadn't failed on me while trying to use it shooting some competitions, I probably wouldn't be complaining. I could always send it to Sigma and see what they can do.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>By the way, Lex, Shun is the one who talked me into the 70-300. Wonder what happened on the trip...<br>

And Kent, I forgot to say, I am shooting a D200 and D7000, with the possibility of adding an FX this winter or next summer. I really want to add an FX at some point, so the D200 will be sacrificed at that time. (I'm shooting less sports so I can move to a more studio/portrait focused camera).</p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>Zach -</p>

<p>This dialogue has prooves we're all nuts!</p>

<p>Sigma's "PRO" lenses are never rated for below freezing...not sure why... ... ...</p>

<p>I've not bought a SIGMA lens since 2005 when I had a very bad experience and needed to purchase 4 lenses to try to get a good copy, (and never did), then splurged (an additional several hundred dollars) to get the Nikkor equivalent.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in my previous post, (with a bit more embellishment):<br>

The 70-300mm is a fine lens and you get a lot for the money and size of his lens. It's also fully capable on an FX format DSLR so you won't be wasting your money on a lens that is virtually unusable on a future purchase.<br>

<br />RS</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Richard, I already have both the 70-200 Sigma and 70-300 Nikkor ;-)</p>

<p>Shot engagement photos last night, and the 70-200 handled the task superbly on the D7000. So guess I'll hold the lens. That just leaves the trouble in compact/small kit land...</p>