keith_b1

I bought my AF-S 300/4 used about 10 years ago. After sitting mostly unused for a few years it started squeaking. Now, if I run the AF about 20 or 30 times with a lens cap on, which makes it cycle all the way through the AF travel, the squeak eventually disappears, and doesn't return until the lens has been unused for a week or 2. I will be fine if the AF motor dies and I can still manually focus the lens. If the AF motor jams manual focus when it fails, I'll be displeased.

Contact Nikon repair FIRST. One of my D800s had the 10-pin problem back in 2013. The counter guy at Nikon Los Angeles told me that if my other D800 developed the issue, Nikon would repair it for free no matter when I brought in in, warranty-wise.

The people that state that "the 17-35/2.8 was created for early DX digital" or similar are wrong. I've owned my copy since 2006, across D200, D2Xs, D3, and D800 bodies. It was not very good on DX, it is much better on FX. If you have actual experience shooting with this lens, you know that it is clearly designed for FX. It is actually very good ('very good' is not as good as 'excellent', mind you), "sharpness"-wise, at 20, 24, and 28mm, and clearly performs best at 24mm. It is fairly good at 17mm, meaning useable but the outer zones are usually a bit softer. It is weakest at 35mm, where the outer zones often need f/11 to sharpen up, and depending on the geometry of the shot, the outer zones at 35mm may never get sharp. It IS a primitive design by today's standards---no question. IMO, it does need to be replaced with something along the lines of what Canon has done with the latest (c.2017) iteration of their 16-35/2.8.

The black junk along the right edge of your sample print looks like head strikes and does not resemble the classic failing black ink switching valve dripping spots onto the print. Agree that some nozzles may be clogged. Find some flat paper to test on. Cheap photo glossy 8.5x11" from an office supply store is fine.

As Ed has written, your lens could use a good CLA job, which should include, at no added cost, an adjustment/tightening of the helicoid key. In Nikon manual focus lenses this side-to-side image judder is usually caused by a loose or worn-out helicoid key. The key is a a metal rod that the lens or lens subgroups ride against while you turn the focus. It is easily serviced by a pro if loose (usually the case) and is replaceable if worn (much less common). In cases where the replacement or used donor part is not available, a new key can be made by the shop IF they can fabricate parts., which most shops today cannot.

If your camera is one that shows 100% of the frame in the finder, you can look though at f/16 or f/22 with the lens of concern attached. Mount the filter and hood, and check for vignetting. Hold your fingertip at the front edge of the hood, and gradually move it into the view of the lens at the corner of the frame and see how far past the edge of the hood the finger can go before showing in the frame. Lens should be set at widest angle of view, usually infinity focus with older lenses.

I'm using Lightroom 6.14, and keep investigating the various Lightroom competitors as I go. I have checked three times over today, and the Lightroom + PS plan is still $9.99 a month....when I check. Apparently, others have gotten the new higher price. This appears to be test marketing, with Adobe using unknown and mysterious algorithms to decide who gets the old and who gets the new price. Funny...I was thinking of finally succumbing to the subscription model, in order to keep up with the inevitable OS changes that obsolete older software. Now I'm looking at other solutions.

Ed wrote: "My garden hose has a California warning. Talk about oxymorons." I think it's fair to warn people when common objects---like PVC garden hoses--- are hot with multiple toxic chemicals. Is Your Garden Hose Toxic?

Telephoto lenses are much more sensitive to out-of-parallelism filter surfaces than normal or wide lenses. I once mounted my Russian 300/4.5 lens to a Beaulieu Super-8 camera. I attached a cheap Cokin 85B filter---which is made of plastic---and the images were blurry and distorted. Great effect if you wanted to illustrate what a drunk sees.

I'd like to see an evaluation of the 8-15 Fisheye Zoom(set at 15mm) against the Fisheye-Nikkor 16/3.5. The old 16/3.5 is very good, and the later 16/2.8s are not very good, IMO. Does the 8-15 zoom finally offer a worthy replacement for the old 16/3.5? I had a Sigma 8mm/3.5 for while when I shot with a D3. My copy looked low resolution the 12MP D3.

It would be ironic if it turned out that Adobe's subscription model were found to be driving an increased market in cracked copies of Lightroom. Cracked copies don't phone home...by definition, they don't have to.

Here in the USA, most of my recent lens service experiences---including APS---have exhibited some degree of incompetence. Wrong grease used, failure to adjust infinity focus, lens reassembled wrong, lens not cleaned internally, lens returned to customer in unusable condition, etc, etc. Except Nikon L.A, who serviced my 17-35/2.8 and, 8 months later, the repair went bad and bricked the lens. Even though it was nominally past their 6-month warranty, they fixed it again fast, free and correctly. Seems like the technicians who knew how to service helicoids have died off or retired.

I bought a couple of Aokatec GPS units for 10-pin (D800) in 2013 and they have worked fine ever since. They are among the least expensive such units. I only use them for certain trips, so most of the year they sit in a box. Don't know how they'd hold up in daily, continous use.

I use filters (mostly Nikon NC and B&W 007) on lenses that have shallow hoods...mostly wide angles. If I don't use the filters, I'd be wiping greasy fingerprints and assorted debris off the front glass of those lenses more than I'd like. Oh, and in the field (often sandy/dusty places), I usually wipe with my shirt.

I agree that the Df would have nicer if had been both narrower and especially thinner. I'm not sure what a 'separate LCD' would be? An smartphone? Also, I can't see how a black (non-operating) rear LCD is distracting? Would a small LCD that only displays histograms be less distracting? The ability to check exposure immediately after shooting...without having to wait for film processing... is one of the great advantages of digital stills over film.