pontus_wallst_n

Yes very interesting, I have heard in the past about the lens calibration, so I will look into that as well in more detail. Today I did some test shooting with the lenses I already have, 1 shot at 18 mm, 1 at 20 mm, 1 at 35 mm, 1 at 50 mm, 1 at 85 mm, 1 at 300 mm and 1 at 500 mm (with TC 1.7 on 300 mm) Fixed lenses of these focal lengths would cover a good range. I also realised that most shots that I take with my 14-24 mm f 2.8 are mostly taken between 18-24 mm, so I don't think that I need lower than 18 mm on the wide side. Most shots taken with my 24-70 mm are between 50-70 mm, but mostly at 70, and most shots taken with my 70-200 are close to the 200 range. This means that if I had a 20 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm, 85 mm and 300 mm, I probably would not miss the 24-70 range very much. I did some crop testing on the 35 mm shots, and its perfectly possible to reach nowadays the 50 mm equivalent in quality. From the 50 mm, it is perfectly possible to reach 70, and with the 85 mm, my guess is that reaching 200 mm by cropping would not be a problem either. I have also looked at various test shots and videos online about the 85 mm f 1.8 and f 1.4 G, both good lenses. I am also often asked to work in tricky or low light situations, so I am definitely considering getting the 85 mm f 1.4 G. my only hesitation now remains regarding the wide side. Either the Nikon 20 mm f 1.8 G, or the Sigma 18-35 mm f 1.8 ART. The nikon is smaller, and cropping from 20 mm to reach 35 is not an issue if need be. I guess it will all depend on if I find that a zoom would be usefull and if I need the extra 18 mm wide instead of just 20... I also read about the sigma 17-50 mm f 2.8 as an alternative sharp wide zoom. I do find however that in terms of shooting, having an f 1.8 lens compared to a 2.8 really does make a difference sometimes... If the sigma 17-50 was a 1.8, and just as sharp at all its focal ranges as the Nikon 20 mm and Nikon 35 mm, perhaps i would have considered it... Does anyone have any experiences with this lens? Pontus

Thanks for all your suggestions, I forgot to mention that I also have a Nikon D810, but started using it much less since I bought my D500 last year. I found the colours overall much nicer on the D500, and I also loved its fast AF system with more AF points. I can now more easilly get shots in focus of lets say fast or unpredictable moving objects or people/animals..etc, which the D810 would miss. The D810 is also heavier than the D500. The 14-24 is indeed sharp, but very heavy, so not the best if you want to leasurly walk around a town or monuments for example, especially if on the D810... I forgot to mention as well that I have had the 50 mm f 1.4 D since 2010, a lens that I have always liked alot, it is great, leightweight and sharp, but for my "mid range" i was thinking about something with a bit more reach. the 24-70 is good but I do find that some shots are not always as sharp in comparaison to the 300 mm f 2.8 which is probably the sharpest lens I have ever had, and extremely fast. So far, I am potentially considering the 10-24 mm (in this case having a bit of a zoom if sharp could help) or the 20 mm f 1.8 G. most of my pictures with the 24-70 are taken at around 70 mm, similarly, with the 70-200 mm, most are at 200...so I think 85 could be good. instead of the 24-70 which I have used alot in conference settings...etc, switching between a 10-24 (or 20 mm), the 35 (if need be) and the 85 might not be such a big hasstle... since i got the 300, my Nikon 200-500 mm has also been used less, however, it is a good leightweight option and a perfectly good lens if good light is available... my 70-200 is the G2 version. I have read that a better, leightweight version has been made since Pontus

Hello Everyone, I am currently very happy with my current setup which is as follows : - Nikon D500, - Nikon 300 mm f 2.8 vr2 - Nikon 35 mm f 1.8 G I also have the Nikon 14-24 mm f 2.8, 24-70 mm f 2.8 and nikon 70-200 mm f 2.8, although great lenses, I don t find them as sharp or as quick to focus as the ones above, given the fact that they are not fixed focal length lenses... As I am always trying to cut down on the volume and weight of what I carry, especially on trips, I thought about the following for wildlife trips for instance ; Nikon D500 with 300 mm and 35 mm. However, I would like to invest in another fixed focal length Nikon lens which is below 35 mm, as well as a good intermediate lens (also fixed focal length) which lies in between 35 and 300 mm, especially for portraits. any suggestions or experiences with any intermediate lenses to share would be very welcome, thanks Pontus

Thanks for all your replies, I ended up buying the Nikon D500, probably my best investment of these recent years! over the past few weeks, in most photo situations, I have ended up leaving my D810 behind and going for the D500. I do like the fact that it has alot of focus points stretching or rather, utilising more of the screen/image area. I also like the Auto AF tracking system in AF C, the 3D mode seems fairly good as well. I can conclude that I have managed to overall get shots with subjects now in focus that my D810 would have missed. I also find the D500 overall much faster and more responsive than the D810, especially when it comes to focusing and even the shutter release button seems to react faster. I also like the burst mode and the colours, especially when shooting video, seem a bit more contrasty and have a nicer tint to them than the D810. And finally, the flip screen is a great asset, especially for video I find. So basically, so far, only positive aspects. to answer the previous question about my wildlife lenses, I use the following (although rarely travel with ALL of them at once due to wheight ) - Nikon 14-24 mm f 2.8, Nikon 24-70 mm f 2.8, Nikon 70-200 mm f 2.8, nikon 200-500 mm f 5.6 and Nikon 60 mm f 2.8 macro. I am definitely planning some wildlife shooting over my easter break with the Nikon D500! Pontus

Hello everyone, I have been reading alot about the Nikon D500, about its extremely fast autofocus, and its many focus points which enable you to get more sharper images on the whole than when using the D810 for instance. I have also read that its colour rendition is very good, and that its considered also very good for wildlife, being a DX camera body. I have been considering buying one for quite a while now, and just called my local camera shop. They said they are doing a deal on the D500 untill the end of march, with over $300 equivalent off on a brand new body (+ warranty of course from Nikon). But before calling them back to purchase it, I thought i would just double check opinions here, with anyone who has this camera. I do admit that i sometimes end up missing some shots with my Nikon D810, even in continous AF, during events, or other times with subjects mooving unpredictably, as well as with birds in flight. I have also been watching some youtube video reviews of the D500 for wildlife, and its considered by many one of the best cameras within its price range and weight. i read that the bluetooth snap bridge function is best turned off as it will quickly drain the battery. (not a big deal as i had not planned to use this function anyway) does the D500 also have the time lapse function, like on the D810? Of course there is always the thought that if I whait, Nikon might bring out an even better body this year, but by that time, i could have probably already made very good use of a D500, even next week when i have been asked to photograph an event which will be very "sporty" and participants running in all directions, so i wouldnt want to miss shots then.. any insights would be very helpfull as always! Pontus

<p>I forgot to mention that the camera body used was the Nikon D810..</p>

<p>another one</p><div></div>

<p>thanks everyone,</p> <p>Yes we are trying to get as many people as possible to know about the work of the NGO, and get as many interested people as possible to see the film, so dont hesitste to share it with friends :) We thought that if everyone who sees it shares it with 10 other people that would be great!<br /> Below are some wildlife snaps taken with the 200-500. All were taken at 500 mm, most from a considerable distance, and then cropped further afterwards. Apart from the cropping, most are more or less straight as they were from the camera, with no tweaking. Of course, looking at them closely on my computer I can see that they might not be as sharp as a fixed focal length 500 or 600mm, but for a zoom lens i would say they are good.<br /> i will post more details about the pictures tomorrow.<br /> Pontus</p><div></div>

<p>Hello Everyone,<br> Some of you might have seen a few questions I posted about the Nikon 200-500 mm lens before leaving for Tanzania in November. I was contemplating wether to purchase one for wildlife photography, and ended up purchasing it.<br> Instead of writing my comments in the old thread I thought it was easier if I stated a new one.<br> Well overall, I have to say I was very pleased with the pereformance of the lens. Firstly, regarding my 4 day wildlife trip, on the whole it was excellent. Reach was very good and the cropping facilities in post with the high resolution of the Nikon D810 for bird photos was great. I will post a few pics later in the week here. I can also report that I was pleased to find out that in most light conditions, the AF does work ok, although slowly, when used with a TC 1.7. Weight wise, of course it is heavy, but I did a 4 hour trek/walking safari with it handheld without any major problems.<br> Secondly, for the work I did for the NGO, I was also very pleased. It was great for imortalising everyday life scenes at the school at which I worked, from far away, without being too intrusive. I also found it extremely sharp and the VR was good.<br> The only drawback is perhaps the focal length on the wide side- of course, 100-500 mm would have been better than 200-500 mm, but you cant get everything i suppose!<br> Below is the link to the film I shot for the NGO, now on Vimeo. 80% of this film was shot with the 200-500mm, while a few shots and inserts were shot with the wide 14-24 2.8 Nikon, and the 70-200 f 2.8 Nikon. A few archive shots were also shot with the canon 5D MK3 and some older footage on video.<br> So on the whole, I would highly recommend this lens, it will come with me for every wildlife trip from now on!<br> <a href="https://vimeo.com/155116789">https://vimeo.com/155116789</a><br> Pontus</p>

<p>Thanks Randy,<br> I tried to upload them this weekend, but it didnt work. Could I e mail or we transfer them to you Phil?<br> I will have to call the lab again tomorrow to see what on earth they have done with my slides....I had a similar incident once (also in the UK) with a lab that would not return my 16mm negative after telecine. I had to return to the lab and insist on having my negative back...which annoyed them!</p>

<p>trying to attatch again</p>

<p>thanks Phil<br> I could have tried that Bill, but the problem is that the slides are at the lab...they forgot to post them back to me..<br> There were 2 more pictures I found, in case they can be saved as well that would be great</p>

<p>yes great thanks, I can now slightly warmify the look if need be. Would you be able to tweak the orange as well in the other pic?</p>

<p>thanks for the second pic too<br> it might just be my screen, but the hand on the person on the right looks a bit orange to me, would it be possible to tweak that?<br> Pontus</p>

<p>Hello Phil,<br> thanks alot, yes thats already much better. You might be right about the underexposed theory, as this picture was taken with a timer, I suspect the camera might have meetered to correctly expose the sky, and therefore underexposing the bottom half which was the important bit...<br> Would it be possible to recover maybe 30% more detail in the dark zone?<br> yes help with pic 1 would also be greatly appreciated.<br> Pontus</p>