carl_s

Thank you all. All great comments. Here's my next thought.... I understand that we are re-defining "normal" based on a target field of view (The 150 mm 4x5 example was a great one), and as sensors become smaller, so will the associated standard use focal lengths. With that said, as lenses move towards the ultra-wide end, is there any degradation in the optic? So for example, if I wanted a "traditional" full frame 24mm view and went with a 16mm focal length on an APS-C body, is the 16mm lens going to have any more distortion than the 24mm lens?

Does anyone have experience with the Sony E/FE lenses? I was thinking its the same as Nikons’s Dx/Fx, where an FE (full frame) lens will work just fine on an aps c body, but an E lens would need the aps-c. But then when I talk to the fine folks at B&H they confirm that FE is for full frame, but also say an E lens works for both full frame and aps-c? This seems backwards from Nikons logic.

Excellent. Thank you for the responses. Gotta love learning something new every day.

Hey All, I am a Nikon full frame shooter and haven't owned an APS-C camera in quite a while. I'm advising a friend who is getting into photography, and now I'm starting to question my own understanding of the field of view differences between a full frame and aps-c body. Hoping someone here can straighten me out: I know that in Nikon's case, FX lenses are designed for their full frame line. A 50mm prime yields a 50mm field of view on a full frame body. If you were to take that 50mm FX lens and throw it on a Nikon APS-C/DX camera, you would end up with a 75mm field of view because of the 3/2 multiplication factor that needs to get applied. I had thought that the reason Nikon produced their DX lenses was that these lenses were made for their bodies with APS-C sensors. So a DX 50mm prime lens would give a 50mm field of view when mounted to an APS-C/DX camera body (Exactly the same field of view as an FX 50mm prime on a full frame body). The person I just talked to was telling me that regardless of which lens you put on an APS-C body, the 3/2 multiplication factor still needs to be applied?? Is this correct? I also understand that if you take a DX lens and throw it on an FX body, the camera goes into crop sensor mode and throws out pixels, but I'm more interested in whether or not the multiplication factor ALWAYS needs to be applied when using an APS-C body, regardless of DX/FX lens choice. Thanks in advance.

The lens is on its way back to Nikon for repair (nearing the end of the 90 day refurb warranty period). There's enough doubt that I might as well have them evaluate it before the warranty runs out. I'll post back anything interesting once I get the lens back.

<p>At f/2.5 it's a lot better (attached). I think I probably just need to take more care when taking photos of "free range kids." Fantastic line Mike...<br> I posted this follow up primarily for anyone who might come across the thread down the road.<br> Thanks for your help all..</p><div></div>

<p>Manual Focus Shot</p><div></div>

<p>So here are two images using Nadeen Flynn's focus chart. The first (AF in title) was taken using magnified live view autofocus. The second (MF in title) was taken using magnified live view manual focus. LR sharpening left at the default value of 25, no other noise reduction, clarity, or contrast adjustments were made.<br> The two photos look virtually identical to me, which I think, would indicate that the AF system is working just fine. Focus falloff appears to happen somewhere around the 2 mm mark, and to me, seems roughly equal on both front and back ends. <br> Now I am probably being over the top, but while "This text should be perfectly in focus" is definitely in the middle of the depth of field, the level of visual acuity doesn't seem to be all that great. Perhaps that's just a factor of doing so much pixel peeping... In a print I'm sure it would look great. Kinda wish I had more lenses for comparison's sake. <br> Also, I've not used zoomed Live View before. Is this a technique that you guys are using regularly when shooting to pinpoint focus? Have a nice day all...<br> Carl</p><div></div>

Very good, thanks Shun (and everyone else). That's what I was looking to hear. Have a nice night all..

<p>Shot with tripod 1/200s f/4.0. Significantly better, but a lot smaller aperture and twice the shutter speed. </p><div></div>

<p>Original #2 Cropped</p><div></div>

<p>Gup - You didn't miss anything. I left out some important detail. The lens is the AF-S model on a D750. <br /> Stephen - Thanks for the link. I intend to look into this as soon as my kids will let me focus (pun intended) on something for more than 2 minutes. <br /> Chip - I guess this is part of everyone's dilemma. For natural light shots, I have been using 1/100 as a minimum and managing depth of field in A mode, selecting the aperture as appropriate for the shot. The D750 gives me huge flexibility (compared to my previous Nikon) when it comes to ISO selection. Still though, there's a big advantage to getting good results at large apertures and lower ISO's when it comes to noise.<br /> In the end, the whole reason for starting this thread was that I was absolutely enamored with the performance from my 1.8D lens. I bought the 1.4G thinking it would be at least a little step forward. Unfortunately, I've found myself disappointed more often than not. I haven't changed bodies, and I haven't changed techniques. This is what led me to wondering if there was an issue with my lens. I'm quite interested in the ability to make fine adjustments and am looking forward to giving that a try. <br /> Rodeo Joe - Sorry, thought Dropbox would be easier for most users. I'll attach here.</p><div></div>

<p>Hmm.. All interesting comments. Thanks. Here is a tripod shot, f/4.0 1/200s and is more what I was looking for. However, I've increased the depth of field dramatically and doubled the shutter speed to get these results. <br> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgjqj6cm65jdmpi/_CRS2967_Crop.JPG?dl=0<br> Perhaps I should be asking more technique related questions than equipment related ones. However, the idea of testing performance using a chart is intriguing to me. Does anyone have any resources that they might suggest for a first timer when it comes to using autofocus charts?<br> <br /> As a sidenote, I had set the camera at minimum shutter of 1/100 using the twice the focal length rule. Maybe when trying to shoot candids of kids I need to rethink thatdecision and set something a little faster.</p>

<p>Shun,<br /> <br />Certainly... Here is a link to a JPEG crop with no clarity, sharpening, or noise reduction applied (<2 MB each). I understand using the tripod for best results. Also understand the shallow depth of field at such a large aperture. However, I was used to the eyelashes being wonderfully sharp with my D lens.<br> <br /> I was really just looking for the general "oh that is bad" or "eh, that's about right" response from those who are more experienced than myself. I'm trying to decide if I should contact Nikon and ask for a different copy of the lens.<br> <br /> Thanks for your thoughts.<br> <br /> https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0rw3i34vopx26u/_CRS2951_Crop.JPG?dl=0<br> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv3nhbgdw7e5kxw/_CRS2961_Crop.JPG?dl=0</p>

<p>Good morning all,<br> I recently replaced my 50mm 1.8D with Nikon's 50mm 1.4G (albeit a refurb). I was very excited to have Nikon's top offering in the 50mm prime series. However, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the sharpness. It seems like I was able to get better performance out of the D lens. It's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison as I already gave my D lens away. So - I'm hoping someone here will take a look at a couple sample images and let me know if these are fair representations of what I might expect from this lens. Or... might I have a bad copy? I realize that there's an awful lot of technique involved, but since I am feeling that my D lens was sharper, I'm thinking that may not be the issue here. <br> Below are links for two images, one at f/2.8 1/100 and the other at f/2.2 1/100. I have used single point AF to focus on one of the child's eyes in each photo. The link is for the raw image so that you can see exactly what was captured without any of my LR edits and/or sharpening.<br> Thanks for any thoughts all. <br> Best regards,<br> Carl</p> <p>http://www.dropbox.com/s/4j0raln6xalwvct/_CRS2951.NEF?dl=0<br> http://www.dropbox.com/s/ue2xblif6xw6txp/_CRS2961.NEF?dl=0</p>