keith_burdett

To be fair, I've not tried the os. I meant the non os was my favourite out of the macros I have used (also including sigma 180mm for Nikon and, years ago, sigma 50mm and 90mm tamron adaptall for contax). I would like the benefit of the os system but not at the expense of extra weight and £££. I'm not sure the optics are much different? Complete lack of chromatic aberration is one of the great things about that non os version. I certainly don't imagine the newer version is any worse in that respect...

Btw my preferred macro choice is the sigma 150 mm non os. But of course it depends what you shoot...

Fwiw I think the image quality/rendering of the 60afs g macro is absolutely lovely. I've owned all 3 lenses, the 60d not since film though. The 28-105 is a great walk around on a lower MP body with good close(er) focus capability. I often use mine as a bit of a beater on my d700 when I'm out doing forestry work or similar. With either 60 you have to zoom with your feet but image quality is better esp (I believe) with the g version. At 1:1 it's very difficult to handhold and working distance is very minimal to the extent the lens hood needs to be removed!

150mm is very very close to 135mm. I can vouch for the sigma 150 non os, sharpness, bokeh and lack of chromatic aberration. Haven't tried the os or the Nikon but used to have sigma 180mm, I found it a bit long for general photography or even individual portraits never mind groups.

Used to have the 2 ring version D for use with d800. Soft at the extremes but lovely in the middle. No problems a bit of downsizing won't solve. The plastic M/AF selector ring is prone to breaking so check this but not always, mine never did. AF is slow but not really a problem for portraits I reckon. I'd recommend that version as it has the tripod collar but no motor. I sold mine with some regrets but worth doing for me as part of a rejig of kit.

Camera settingswise I do almost exactly as Joseph. My only difference is I shoot single af point. Nearly all my wildlife shooting is in woodland and I find the single point less easily distracted by stray branches, foliage etc. Slight difference in kit, D7100 or 800 with 300 afs f4.

An excellent start in wildlife photography. With printing, calibration is key. When printing, custom settings often need to be applied in processing to suit the printing medium. Sometimes this is trial and error, some papers have downloadable custom curves you can apply, then tweak to suit. In addition, when I was inkjet printing with an Epson r2400 prints were always too dark until I reduced the ink output by around 20% (via Photoshop printer preferences). The custom curve makes the image look wrong on screen but in theory it prints correctly on the given paper. Keep going, you evidently have some fieldwork skills to get this close, and an eye for composition.

My experience too. Requires speedy menu delve to change setting to overflow for 2nd card. Then remembering to switch back after. Ok not quite the same, just reread your post. I store jpeg to second card so both fill up but first faster with raws. If first fills i change second card to overflow and keep shooting without the backup till i get to a computer.

Try pulling back to 180mm. My 2 ring version was way better at 180 even at 2.8.

I find mf with d800/300f4 (non pf) combo very good even wide open. Essentialfor wildlife in undergrowth. Adding 1.4x still feasible.

Just reread and realised you're getting a crop as well as a qualit y reduction. Still wonder about previous batch processes... Are you shooting raw only or raw plus jpeg? I've just looked and can't see how this would occur automatically /accidentally in nx. Your fuji images would be jpegs to start with presumably as nx wouldn't read the raws. So it would seem to be a camera thing or a raw conversion thing...

Andy, there's no problem with using d800, cnx2 and windows 10 for alamy submissions. This is my setup too. If you've changed aspect ratio in camera you would notice greying out of the frame in the viewfinder and your raw image would no longer be 7360 x 4912. If you open a raw file in cnx2 then immediately save as jpeg full quality does it automatically reduce pixel dimensions in the jpeg? Or only after editing? Is it possible you are hooked into a previous batch command? I'll have a look at my system and see if I can see anything. In view nx there's a resize option in the convert dialogue box which will apply to all images selected but I don't think this applies with nx. Couldn't find your post in alamy forum btw, which section did you post in? cheers, Keith

For lower plants, lichens and small fungi, I would recommend tamron 90mm or sigma 105mm. The 85 nikon would be pretty good too if no plans to go fx. 60mm might suffice for working distance on dx but I find with the slightly longer lenses it's easier to defocus distracting backgrounds. More dof isn't always a good thing for close up photography.

<p>For me, ETTR exposure mode, perhaps flexible (+ or - thirds of a stop to allow specular highlights to blow) with in viewfinder histogram, preferably raw, preferably R,G or B selectable. I think avoiding clipping distracts me more than anything else from just shooting.</p> <p> </p>

Focus and recompose using centre focus point at such shallow dof will alter the subject distance on recomposition. If this is your problem, your subject's ear or hair may be more in focus than the eye... I agree- afc, burst, no recomposition.