2Oceans

Rodeo your probably right.

Arthur, Own the AFS 1.4 and recommend it. Not fully convinced there is much difference in acuity or autofocus speed/accuracy. There are a number of objective and subjective reviews on both lenses. The most critical comments on the D version coming from Thom Hogan when comparing it with the AFS and even though he did not gush over either lens, he pointed out the flaws of the D version when shooting wide open that is the very reason to buy a 1.4. The AFS is larger and a little easier to hold IMHO and B&H sells a refurb for about the same price as the D version. If you are ever planning to upgrade to a Z system body then think seriously about the AFS. As a proud owner of a complete set of aging Nikon auto extension tubes and dual element filters it is fair to say that backward compatibility is more of a personal decision where as compatibility going forward into the eventuality of mirrorless is more of a necessity. I would recommend the AFS for that reason. Still have two F4s film bodies, action finder, data back and such and a now 30 year old underwater housing that was last used 16 years ago to photograph great white sharks but it was a couple of Brits on that trip with Fuji S2s who won me over to digital permanently. Sad to say have not looked back but looking at the price of film and processing not complaining. Like the machine gun sound of 9 frames a second that the f4s could never muster mirrorless has silenced that as well. Good hunting.

Nick, Per Roland’s web site there were about 2400 of the Version I and 2300 of the Version II. Version II was about a kilogram lighter. If old age is a concern and it should be, paid $500 for new motors for my first gen 200-400 built in the same time frame as the 600mm version II lens being discussed just a couple of years ago using Photo Tech in New York. Some may feel that it is hard to make an argument for repairing a lens this old but in the waning light the 200-400 f4 has pretty quick autofocus compared to my other lenses with similar or overlapping focal lengths. Some of the more current glass may well be sharper at long distances but I am happy with my decision to repair the 200-400. It gets used more than the 600mm f4 vr that is the sharpest lens I have ever owned and I cant imagine that the slightly older version II is any less capable. For the time being the long DSLR telephotos will stay even as I blissfully begin my transition over to a Z mount system. I regret selling my first gen 500mm f4 AFS. It fit in my camera bag perfectly and was wicked sharp. I sold it only because it was getting older and I was concerned about future repairs but it was/is a great lens and 500mm may be the first telephoto lens I buy in a z mount when Nikon eventually builds one. That may be a while, who knows, mean while the D500/D850 get every ounce of goodness out of my current telephoto line up. Stay frosty.

JDM, Wishing you well and toasting to your good health with a fine merlot that goes well with pizza. Still learning to be ethical by avoiding stepping on glacier lillys and when faced with destitution not photographing folks who are down and out. Photography is a gift from God and a great means of expression. Don’t have any thing new to offer but do use model releases. Thanks for your thoughts. Stay frosty.

I currently own 4 lenses with the ring. 60mm, 105mm, 70-180mm, and 80-200mm. All have intact focus select rings. I gave my sister the 200mm micro and have yet to replace it mistakenly thinking that the now discontinued Sigma 180mm 2.8 would take its place. I like to shoot closeups with a 300mm so I still have options besides the 200mm. I replaced the ring on the 80-200 about 14 years ago while in San Diego at Kurts Camera Repair. I don’t think there is any question that the ring is a weak point on these lenses and I keep a piece of gaffers tape over the buttons to keep things undisturbed. Even the 80-200 stays in manual mode. Since these lenses are all optically quite good I see no reason to part with them. As well I own a complete set of now ancient Nikon auto extension tubes and that helps with close up shooting. You would have thought Nikon would have learned its lesson with respect to the MF selector ring but they still make the 200mm micro that is the best in its class and also a 105 DC f2. I think the older 60mm micro I own with the MF ring was discontinued only a few years ago. My understanding is that you can get the rings repaired no problem but of course for a price. Plastics are great up to a point. Eventually plastics out gas and become brittle. Part of the byproduct of outgassing is formaldehyde that actually contributes to the break down of some plastics so its kind of a self consuming thing. Wish this wasn’t a problems. Keeping things cool dry and ventilated may help Good hunting.

Even with the concern about astrophotography Lenstip.com had a very positive review of the Nikon Z 20mm 1.8 lens. Lenstip called the coma “forgivable” and summarized by calling it “an excellent lens that is a joy to use.” Everyone who does night sky photography sees coma in the corners of the image and you get it with all super wide angle lenses including the Valtrex 20mm lens that has lower resolution wide open when shooting night skies. I see it with the Zeiss 15mm wide open. It’s the nature of the beast but all-in-all the Nikon Z 20mm is considered by two reviews as a very good lens. Photographylife’s Nansim Mansurov feels its optical performance is superb even with coma considered and that the coma is better controlled than the DSLR 20mm F 1.8 G version. He comments “the coma performance of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S is better than any other ultra-wide angle lens I have tested so far.” Anyway its going to be my first Z lens on a Z7 body that will allow me to get the best out of the new system. Good hunting.

Marry, so sorry about the fire. I will be making the jump to Nikon mirrorless soon and have decided to split the duty between my Nikon DSLR (currently own) for long lens action and the Z system for landscape. Nikon apparently has really nailed the new Z 20mm f 1.8 in a way that cant be ignored. I plan to use it for night sky photography. I am very happy with my current Nikon 20mm and Zeiss 15mm lenses on the D850 but I think the Z system is an improvement especially for landscapes as well as the future. I hope your insurance covers you well. I would be just as upset about losing my tripod and camera bag collection. I wish you well as you recover and replace your home and belongings.

wademonahan, The D800e is the camera that changed everything. Since its release many companies have followed with high resolution bodies and even third party lens companies such as Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have had to keep up by producing quality optics that they were never known for but are now envied. You will not miss much with the D800e. It’s still an outstanding performer after 8 years and at base ISO nothing is lost but you can shoot it at ISO 3200 with results that IMHO are much better than Provia pushed to 200 or for that matter not pushed at all. It will make all of your present lenses better and also show you the limits of your glass. The newer bodies like the D850 have a deeper buffer and faster frame rate but the image quality improvements are incremental. Good hunting.

wademonahan, You may consider using a depth of field calculator and accurately measuring your distance with a tape while your body is mounted on a tripod. Your D800e has a focus point that will appear when you review the shot. In live view if you zoom in to an out of focus area you can see the depth of field focus change as you scale through the aperture settings Anyway digital allows us to immediately review images more critically than film. Your awareness of depth of field will increase since your more in the moment. Good hunting.

Polarizing a cerulean sky with an ultra wide angle lens is futile due to unevenness and as well makes the sky too dark unless that is the artistic goal. You can use a polarizer on a stream beds to turn the rocks dark chocolate or to knock down reflections and glare and to saturate colors. Its nice to have polarizers to fit all lenses including drop in filters for long lenses but use them sparingly unless you have a specific goal. Remember also that a polarizer takes away light which can be a desired effect if your trying to shoot with a slow shutter speed.

The condensate dehumidifiers will also heat up your cabinet. You can use a large version of the condensate dehumidifier to heat your home. The amount of increased temperature of a bar/rod dehumidifier is around 10 degrees and that by its nature will decrease relative humidity. The condensate dehumidifier produces heat as it condenses water and will raise the temperature of your enclosure perhaps more than the rod.

Mark, I think your idea is a really good one. Using the rod dehumidifier has my vote. I have been using a Ruggard Cabinet dehumidifier and rechargeable absorbent dehumidifiers in Pelican cases for 3 years now. The cabinet works well but is crammed full. The Pelican cases don’t allow ready visual access like a cabinet but are great for travel in the tropics. It’s not about absolute humidity and more about preserving the electronics so a little goes a long way reducing the relative humidity. If you can keep it under 60% your probably going to be OK. I don’t live on the coast anymore and my basement is water tight, cool in the mid 60s F and has a free standing dehumidifier that keeps things around 40% and adding the cabinet provides reassurance but I think your path is more cost effective and practical. The small cost of the unit pales when compared to the repair cost of your babies. I think that the increase in temperature that the “Golden Rod “ creates is insignificant and as well you don’t have to empty the reservoir. I have gone through that in my free standing office when I lived in Florida. Emptying it every 2-3 days was a pain in the but. Good hunting.

Cool, Does it come with a theremin to play while your scanning?

RaymonsC, just remember that TTL varies the light output depending on where the camera is pointed. All it does is control power output and there is no way of being certain what that output may be or that it is repeatable. Don’t believe for a second that the flash in TTL will some how magically differentially light the subject or change the quality of the light. To do that you have to modify the shape of the light and filter it. Of course that is sometimes difficult or impossible . That said you can get better consistency in manual mode because you do not have to worry that moving the camera will change the flash output. In full manual if your bouncing light you can take advantage of the full power of your flash that you can’t get to in TTL. One last advantage to manual is that you don’t have to purchase new flash guns because your not chasing the latest and greatest flash TTL system. Last thing, don’t mount the flash on the camera hot shoe. You can buy reliable manual radio triggers for the same price or less than a quality Nikon sync cord. BLUF: Full manual flash allows more control. More control is better. Good hunting.

RaymondC, I would recommend going completely manual with the flash and the camera. You will have better control that way. Good online reading on the subject can be had at Strobist. David Hobby who runs the site emphasizes manual control and low cost solutions. A good read that might help you is Outdoor Flash Photography by John Gerlach. As Rodeo said your cameras will control and limit sync speed if left to its own devices. Manual will allow you to over ride the speed. I think 250th is the normal upper limit on some Nikon gear depending on the body. Good hunting.