BobF wrote:

With the D600, there's no reason whatsoever to put up with APS-C any more.

Funny thing... I own a D600!

But I don't always want to carry around $4000 worth of camera and lens...


ROFL. You might look into the Voightlander 40/2.0. Tiny, light, high
quality. Manual focus with AF confirm, though. It was my main lens (often
only lens I'd take) until the Canon 24-70/2.8 II came out. I sort of miss
it: with the 40/2.0, a 5DII (or D600) isn't all that clunkier than a P&S.
With the 24-70/2.8 II, it's a major clunker. (Canon makes a 40/2.8 pancake
AF lens that gets good reviews, but that doesn't do you any good.) But the
24-70/2.8 II is so good over its whole range that I can't stand to not use
it.

Another bad thing about the 24-70/2.8 II is that there's not much point in
taking the Zeiss 21/2.8 along. In real life, 24 mm (on FF) is quite wide,
and while for serious landscape, 21 is worth it, the rest of the time 24 mm
is plenty wide. Heck, some of the widest _looking_ stuff I've done was with
a 60 mm lens on 645. It's the eye, not the lens (but you know that).

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan










I'm
quite happy with my old D90 but it is old and the movie mode is ****. I wish
the
5300 was cheaper, it seems a little pricey to me. One of my nephews has the
little 3200 I think it is and it takes really good pictures! He got it on
sale
for around $400 with a kit lens.

I was looking at the small Canons as well, figuring I would only have to buy
1
lens for it just for "carry around" use. Unfortunately the Rebel line has
gotten
quite expensive as well. Maybe I can get a deal on a T3i somewhere...