If I think I will need it, I add the D200 for a second body. If macro is a possibility, then the 105 or 60 (for my wife.) If film is to be used, then the F5 and the N50, maybe the F100 or N80. I might also take the 17-35. For longer shots, there is the 300 f/4 - or 600 f/4 if I want to break out the big gun. Can't forget the two Gitzo tripods and heads: Wimberley for the 600, RRS BH-55 for everything else. Or maybe the Manfrotto monopod and small Giottos ballhead for a nice portable solution when I'm trying to cut down on weight.
In short, I could take anything, depending on what I'm planning on doing. The last serious trip I took, my camera bag weighed significantly more than my suitcase, and the suitcase was near the 50 pound limit for the airlines! Maybe I'll just buy a bigger car and drive everywhere from now on. If I went for a Subaru Outback, there would be more places I could reach than my current Honda allows.
Give me a 16-85 VR and 80-400 VR and I think I would have a great travel kit though. (I haven't added the 80-400 yet.) I'd have to bring extra stuff for film, but at least it is a good start.
D300
50 1.8
tok 12-24
nik 18-70
nik 70-200VR 2.8
sig 180 macro
sb800
kenko tubes and 1.4TC
my tamrac is already bulging at the seams and wieghs more than the airline hand luggage allowance and now I'm waiting on 300 f4 AFS so god knows how I'll fit that in. but how can I leave anything out ? I go out to do landscape, a macro opp or birding/wildlife opp comes along. leave anything out and that's the exact lens you will need that day.
I'd add the 17-55 2.8 for the 18-70 and in the future a 500 or 600 f4.
Here is what I will have sometime soon, once my new business venture gets off the ground:
D300
D200
50 1.4 AiS
85 1.8
14-24
24-70
70-200
300 2.8 AF-S
2 SB-800s
To get there, I will need to sell my 17-55 and purchase the 14-24/24-70. Sometime after that, probably a looooong time after, I will get a D3 and sell the D200 assuming it is worth something then. At that point, I will be set for a while.
tuannie wrote:
I shoot weddings as well so I have to ask. Do you find that you use the 70-200 VR less and less as you shoot with the 85 1.4 and 200mm VR?
Tuan
I find that if I am in a hurry, I tend to pull out the 70-200 and work quick and dirty so to speak.
The 200 F2 is a thinking man's lens, because of the working distance and weight of that lens, I will pull it out for the initial part of the shoot, get those beautiful soft bokeh shots and then switch to the 85mm for the rest.
There is a learning curve to the 200mm as well.
F2.0 is so shallow that I found myself getting a number of OOF shots especially on closeups.
I also find that after 20 mins of holding the 200mm is enough of a workout for me!
On a budget, the 85 F1.4 is one heck of a lens!
It costs less than half of the Canon 85 F1.2L (which I still own BTW) and give great results.
I don't know how to really cure NAS or CAS. Every time I browse the D3 photos on flickr and pbase, severe NAS overcome me. The quality of the D3 images are so much better than the D300 images, it makes me think it's the camera. Then I convince myself that it's because the D3 buyers may be more skilled and have much better PP skills.
If you buy the equipment and put photography on the backburner, it may cure NAS. If you like looking at photos on the internet and wonder how to take the same shots, you'll be back on the NAS wagon. Why does technology have to tempt us so?
Justin Berman wrote:
Andre,
Having used the Sigma 150, don't get it. I found it low contrast and to have muted color, I will agree that it looks like a bargain, but it most certainly is not. Also, as someone coming from using the Tamron 90, I can say that the 150mm length is a significant difference and a learning curve.
Justin
Interesting ... I have heard very few bad words about the lens. Do you think maybe you had a bad copy?
As for the working distance, I have used a 60mm micro and a 200mm micro, so I have a good jist of the range of working distances.
snegron wrote:
Sorry for debunking your theory, but all you need is just a bigger bag! Maybe a suitcase with wheels? I think Pelican makes something big enough to carry all that stuff you listed!
NOPE! It has to fit on the back ... they make backpacks that size ... HMMMM now it's just a money thing ... and deciding what bag of course
Justin Berman wrote:
Andre,
Having used the Sigma 150, don't get it. I found it low contrast and to have muted color, I will agree that it looks like a bargain, but it most certainly is not. Also, as someone coming from using the Tamron 90, I can say that the 150mm length is a significant difference and a learning curve.
Justin
I beg to disagree. The Sigma 150 is a fantastic lens, sharpas a tack and vibrant colors with my D300. You may have had a bad copy.
NOPE! It has to fit on the back ... they make backpacks that size 