vince

I'll look into the magnifier. Thanks JD. And after doing some more homework I realize that whether or not the chip convinces the camera there's a lens attached, autofocus at f/11 is virtually impossible.

I have used my old Vivitar One 800 f/11 solid cat with several DSLRs including my 80D. Results are good enough for my application, but I find it increasingly difficult to confirm focus visually or with Live View. I believe it's my aging eyes. I want to add a focus confirmation chip adapter to the T Mount to provide data to the 80D. Exposure information would be nice, but I generally shoot in manual with that lens because shots are rarely spontaneous and there is plenty of time to prepare. Still, is it possible to get one preset to f/11 instead f/1.8 like most are?

As if to prove you guys right, my old Vivitar Solid Cat is still rattling and still going on certain trips with me. I've recently switched from Nikon to Canon and that has revived my interest in this lens. Interestingly, there is still no one who will tackle the job of fixing or stopping the loose stop or guide rattling around inside. The name Vivitar is back to life, but a totally different company than the old one. Now my question has shifted to sharpness and focus verification. I can get reasonably sharp using reading glasses and Live View zoomed to 10x, but the images are still soft. The data chip equipped T-Mount adapter is quite thick and has the lens further from the sensor plane than it would with an original T-Mount adapter, but I don't think that should matter. Is this lens just not sharp enough to render weeds across my back yard sharper than this?

<p>After several days of consideration, I have a different approach to the Canon 100-400 IS II. Very versatile lens from all accounts and despite the slower aperture, it seems like a worthy compromise with a fast 2.8 zoom on a new body and an ideal replacement for my 80-400 VR (which is also slow and <em>far</em> slower to focus).</p> <p>I love my D7000 too. And my D3100 for that matter. I only entered the debate because I'm looking for something smaller and lighter, and it feels like it's time to upgrade while the aging bodies are worth something. Hadn't considered a D500 or any full frame because I like the 1.5x impact on telephoto reach, although much of my work has become far more wide angled in recent years.</p> <p>Nikon does offer a nice 10-24, but it cost nearly three times as much as the Canon 10-18, is substantially bigger than the Canon and weighs twice as much. After digesting all this, the 10-18 and 100-144 have become important variables in the decision. Hence the Canon lens forum.</p>

<p>I have also been very pleased with my D7000 at 3200 and even 6400. And I also studied the DP Review comparison tool. One could certainly do worse than keeping an aging body for shooting indoor sports and use a smaller, lightweight body for outdoor and travel work. That is where I am today, but it feels like two generations old is the right time to sell my aging DSLR bodies and upgrade to the current SOTA. The main thing I'm looking for in upgrading is low light performance. Perhaps I'm making too much of this and should take up knitting, but I have waited too long to sell lesser cameras and in the Digital Era, they quickly lose their value.</p>

<p>Sorry for taking up the six seconds it took you to think up the snarky answer, Jim.</p> <p>I suspect the sensor in the T6s produces image quality for internet use and 720p display at 6400 as acceptable as the D7000 does at 1600. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?</p>

<p>I bought a Nikon N80 back in the early 1990s and have been a serious amateur Nikon user ever since. In the Digital Era I've graduated only up to the D7000, but recently had a revelation/crisis that convinced me to look closely at my backup body as a primary. The extra size and weight of the D7000 just didn't feel worth it all of a sudden and I'm ready to upgrade. I found that the D3100 was equal to the D7000 in some ways and superior in enough to convince me to sell the D7000. Until it occurred to me that the D3100 won't support AF on my 80-200/2.8 or 80-400 VR.<br> After looking in to the possibilities, I found that ignoring Canon for 25 years may have been a mistake. While the DSLR bodies are too similar to make a difference (to me), the lenses are quite attractive. While the medium telephoto zooms are very close to Nikon's versions, the sub-$300 10-18mm is really attractive.<br> Shooting travel documentation is not very demanding as my output is usually my HDTV or prints on canvas. I have found that even my older D70 images are adequate (to my eye) for prints in my office and home. The most demanding work I do is indoor tennis where the 80-200/2.8 really shines. Sharpness is good enough for me at ISO 2200 on a monopod.<br> I don't see myself dropping $2K on the 100-400 IS II, but considering what I've been happy with in the past several years, I wonder if a consumer zoom like the 55-250 STM, the 70-300 IS or the 70-200/4 with a DSLR body that produces image quality two stops faster than my generations old D7000 might do the trick.</p>