I'm convinced of the pro glass

...which clearly captures more detail at ISO100 than at ISO200. :) It's absolutely not the case that the D810 has a problem at higher ISOs (although I believe there might be a tiny drop at some ISOs shared with the D800) - it's that it captures even more detail at ISO64.

- By 'detail' I take it you mean 'has a greater dynamic range'? The dynamic range of modern DSLRs is probably an order of magnitude greater than any slide film ever made, and also exceeds what most negative film could hope to capture without special techniques.

So I see no problem at all with throwing away a couple of stops to get a more appropriate aperture or shutter speed. How often are you photographing black cats in a rabbit hole backlit against the sun?

Direct flash? Hateful stuff! But bounced flash can be implemented in almost any room, and is much less intrusive and distracting. Even those little white plastic speedlight-condoms help to spread the light and soften its effect on the eyes, even though they do little to alter the character of the light.

"That doesn't stop me from wanting a 135mm f/2 DC also."

- Save your money Ben. Get the Samyang 135mm f/2 instead.

The picture is the thing.

You do what you need to do to get the picture. High ISOs, low ISOs, flash, available light, noise-- it's all subordinate to the image.

As in so many areas of life, ideological commitment to some particular method can be a serious impediment to achievement in actual practice.

Is that sufficiently ex cathedra for you?

5 digit ISO

That was me shooting night games under light, or in the gym, with my 18-140.

ISO = 12800, 1/500 sec, f/5.6 (wide open). I was trying to stay away from ISO 25600

I would have loved to use a f/2.8 and get the ISO down to 3200. But for this old man, the f/2.8 lens is too heavy to haul around for a double game (JV + Varsity). Plus 2x the cost of the f/4 lens. The f/4 lens was a compromise for weight and cost.

With the 70-200/4 ISO=6400, 1/500, f/4

I had 2 student who came to the last football game with a 70-200/2.8. Mom and dad's lenses. (drool)

For the gym sports, I switched to the 35/1.8 DX. ISO=3200, 1/500 sec, f/2.8.

I tried shooting at f/2, but got more focus misses.

Though now I have to look at the Tamron 18-70/2.8 that @rj mentioned.

What you want is a Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 or for the wider end, the 18-35mm 1.8. Limited zoom range but you can shoot wide open if needed!

If your OK with 2nd hand, they can be had quite reasonably priced.

I tried shooting at f/2, but got more focus misses.

Is it really OOF or is the shallow DoF in the 'wrong' place?

What you want is a Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 or for the wider end, the 18-35mm 1.8. Limited zoom range but you can shoot wide open if needed!

 

If your OK with 2nd hand, they can be had quite reasonably priced.

 

Is it really OOF or is the shallow DoF in the 'wrong' place?

I first looked at the DX Sigma 50-150/2.8, as the focal range matched close to the standard 70-200 on a FF camera.

• + That was the ONLY fast DX lens that was close to the standard FF 70-200 in focal length.
  
  
   
  
  
• - It really sucked when Sigma make the VR version of the DX 50-150/2.8 as big and heavy as the FF 80-200/2.8. So no DX size reduction like the non-VR version.
  
  
• - Then rather than a smaller version 2, they discontinued it for the 50-100/1.8.
  
  

Then the 50-100/1.8

• - To me, the reduction in zoom range really sucked. OK that was one of the compromises to get from f/2.8 to f/1.8.
  
  
• - - The weight, is as heavy as a FF Nikon 70-200/2.8. OK, to be expected from the larger f/1.8 glass, and another compromise. Although for me weight was a major issue, so this hurt bad.
  
  
   
  
  
• - But no VR. This one really hurt, especially for an old man who is not as steady as his younger self was.
  
  
  • My guess is that either the designer thought that the fast 50-100 did not need VR, or Sigma could not get the VR version to meet the target IQ.
    
    
  [*]So no VR on a heavy lens, and I would have to use it on a monopod. If so, I might as well use the slower but wider range 70-200/2.8 or the discontinued 50-150/2.8.
   
  [*]- - Then I read of repeated issues with consistent focusing. The problem that I read was that the lens would not consistently focus, so focus adjustments did not work. And with that shallow DoF, missing focus was more of an issue than with slower lenses. This was fatal.
  • I hope Sigma has the focus issue sorted out.
    
    

As for focus miss with my 35/1.8

• It could very well be that the AF did not nail the focus when the shutter fired. C-AF will do that. I observed that many times, my first shot of a snap shot, where I quickly shift subjects, shot 1 is OoF (I think the camera was still focusing the lens), then shot 2 is in focus. The deeper DoF would accommodate some of the focus lag.
  
• Interestingly I did not have this problem shooting basketball. I think I did not do as much fast subject shifting as I did with volleyball.
  

• But I have also missed the subject, so my fault. On close examination of some OoF shots, I found the background in focus, but the subject not. So I clearly missed the fast moving subject, or missed in the snap/shift to a new subject.
  

Lightweight Pro Glass, is, I think, a bit of a contradiction.:D

I have never had a single focus issue with the 50-100mm on my D500 (maybe that's the point?). 2500 frames of jumping horses on a grey English afternoon and it never missed. 1/1600 @ f4 Auto ISO about 30 degrees on to a horse doing maybe 20mph, jumping 4ft fences, about 20>30 feet away.

VR doesn't help for moving subjects, although when I do autumn leaf close-ups in the woods it would be handy but guess it would make it even heavier. Go monopods!

Certainly my first frame, of a burst, success rate is higher with the D500 than the D7200 with the same lens.

Trouble with all this tech is the better stuff gets, the further you push the envelope of what's possible, so that small increments in, say focus acquisition, mean you can get that extra money shot... when before you couldn't. Giving the AF module more light to work with has the same result.

So you buy the upgrade.

...and repeat....;)

@mike_halliwell

Yup the old pro f/2.8 lenses were/are heavy.

But if they keep the optical quality and slow down the lens as with the f/4 lenses. They have the pro quality with a lighter lens.

But as you said, AF performance is better with more light. More light = faster lens.

On a DX/crop camera, I prefer the shorter 50mm end of the 50-100/150 to the 70mm end of the 70-200. That 70mm is just a bit too long for field sports, when shooting on the sidelines.

I would LOVE the f/2.8 or f/1.8 pro lenses, but being retired, and not making money off my shooting, I have to be careful where my limited budget is spent.

And being old, I can't handle the gear weight like I did when younger, so a monopod is definitely in the future. But, I'm trying to push it off as long as I can, as it really cramps my ability to follow/pan with the action, when standing near the sidelines.

The D500 is probably a better camera for me to use for some of the sport stuff that I shoot, than the general purpose D7200, but it isn't in the budget.

That 70mm is just a bit too long for field sports, when shooting on the sidelines.

Sure is, there's only so far you can lean back into a barbed-wire fence if the horse jumps a little closer and you hit the 50mm hard-stop on the lens!

The 50mm end on the Sigma has an effective FOV of ~75mm on FX and is a bit tight. I wonder if Sigma could push version 2 to 40-100mm 1.8...? :cool:

By looking at the EXIF data on a day's horse jump shots, the magic number seems to be ~135mm, (so 85mm on DX);

I have tried an 85mm 1.8 G AFS prime on the D500, but it's too scary with no zoom-flexibility for errant gee-gees.

Wouldn't 35 to 105mm be a more sensible range for a DX lens?

I find the old Series E 75-150 f/3.5 to be quite a nice lens for use on full-frame and for intimate venues, but a wider zoom ratio than 2:1 wouldn't go amiss.

Swap it to DX and you've still got a very useful and neat little tele-zoom.

I also have to revise my previous 'rave review' of this lens. My first sample - with silver metal mounting grip - is an absolute gem. A second sample I picked up - with black plastic grip - is more of a dog! So obviously you need to try before you buy with this lens, or get one cheap enough to take a risk.

Range YES :), Speed NO :(

The whole idea is a fast 'Pro' lens and currently Sigma seem to have hit a x2 Zoom Range 'Limit' for their f1.8 DX zooms. Either 18-35mm 1.8 or 50-100mm 1.8.

An extra 10mm on the wide end would be very handy. It's so sharp it easily crops to 150mm FOV at the other end.

The 70-200/4 AFS VR I have does seem to produce exceptionally nice looking results-at f/4. I also have a 70-200/2.8 VRI that I think needs to be used at 3.2 if possible, so the f/4 version is effectively only 2/3 stop slower in my mind. I had an 80-200/2.8D a good while back and not able to compare directly, but I am pretty sure that the 70-200/4 (and 2.8VRI central area at least) would win a comparison.

 

Also, I have one of the non VR Tamron 17-50/2.8 zooms that seems quite good. Zoom operation of my Tamron is fine, and I like the relatively light weight. Too bad there does not seem to be an inexpensive FX equivalent of that lens, at least that I have found.

Well put. I keep the f/4 in my go bag with the D750. I also have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO DG, if I need an extra stop. However, it tends to reside in its padded case. The Nikkor is tack sharp, even @ f4. And, like most folks, I'll kick up the ISO by a stop when I need to. I also had the older AF "D" version, but the newer model is really heads and shoulders above it.

Wouldn't 35 to 105mm be a more sensible range for a DX lens?

 

Funny you mentioned that.

Last year, I was thinking that based on the EXIF of my soccer pics, 35 would be a good wide end for a field zoom.

So 35-105 (3:1) or push the range a bit more to 35-140 (4:1). Make that a f/2.8 lens, and you would have something for us DX guys.

Nah, f2 at a most.....:cool:

Might need a wacky polycarbonate composite, fluorite glass and titanium to keep the weight down though....;)

Funny you mentioned that.

Last year, I was thinking that based on the EXIF of my soccer pics, 35 would be a good wide end for a field zoom.

So 35-105 (3:1) or push the range a bit more to 35-140 (4:1). Make that a f/2.8 lens, and you would have something for us DX guys.

Interesting thread, I hope it continues.

As nice as a wide range f/1.8 or even f/2 zoom would be, it's worth remembering that Nikon still hasn't QUITE even made it to 3x on their f/2.8 FX zooms. The 70-200 is 2.87x and the 24-70 is 2.9x.

Of course, technology DOES march on-Nikon's first zoom was both a truly horrible lens, and had an only marginally useful 2x 43-86mm range, albeit with a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture.

Go down to f/4 and we can get 5x now(24-120 f/4) and in DX with a variable aperture we can get a mind boggling 16.7x(18-300). Of course, those lenses come with compromises-particularly the latter. I've played with the 18-300, but still would rather grab my 18-200 VR I if I'm shooting DX and want just a single to carry(although no one but Ken Rockwell seems to be in love with the latter lens).

Ben,

The 43-86 was the first Nikon lens that I owned.

Yeah it wasn't optically the best lens, but it did the job, most of the time. It was the consumer zoom of its day.

My only regret was not about the IQ, but the lens speed. Day shots were fine. But indoor shooting Tri-X pushed to 1200, my shots sucked compared to those shot with a 50/1.4 or even 50/2 that did not have to be pushed. Compared to the f/1.4 lens, I was 2-1/2 stops slower, and that hurt. If I had to do it over again, I would go for the 50/1.4 simply for the lens speed.

As for the zoom range, yes 43-86 was barely adequate (barely wide to short tele), but decently usable. I replaced it with a 35-105 as soon as I could, as that was a more useful range. Funny that Sigma's f/1.8 zooms are back to the 2:1 zoom ratio.

As for IQ, it is the old saying "ignorance is bliss." I was perfectly happy with the 43-86. But then I did not compare it A/B with a prime either, so I had no idea of what the IQ was. And that was also the case with my 18-140. I thought it was just fine, until I used the 70-200/4 and saw what GOOD glass can do. Now I am not so happy with the 18-140. But I accept the IQ for the zoom range I get. I just have to not crop in as much.

I was originally going to get the 18-105, but then it was replaced with the wider range 18-140, which had better IQ reviews despite the wider zoom range.

Don't forget the 'ancient' Tamron AF 28-105mm f 2.8 SP LD Aspherical. (FX Lens)

That's a 1:3.75 f2.8 fast zoom range.

I have, and like, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 on my D7200, but I don't shoot sports, so the zoom ring is a non-issue here. Another 10mm on the long end would be nice, but it is what it is. Just ordered the 35 1.8 Nikkor, we'll see how it performs on the D7200.

I liked the 50 f/1.8 on my D200, but I've not tried it on my D7200 yet. It's an older AF-D, and if you listen to Thom Hogan, even the newer AF-s design is not too great on 24 MP bodies.

I also have the 18-200 Nikkor and it has lived on my D200 for years, save for the times that my 12-24 f/4 Nikkor stepped in for wider views. There's been a ton of negative feedback on the 18-200, but it has given me good imagery. Maybe my copy is an exceptional one, I dunno. Of course it's no speed demon.

I'd like to trade off my 20-35 f/2.8 Nikkor for something better suited for my D7200. It hasn't been used in years, since parking my F100.

Sorry, returning from being out of commission.

- By 'detail' I take it you mean 'has a greater dynamic range'? The dynamic range of modern DSLRs is probably an order of magnitude greater than any slide film ever made, and also exceeds what most negative film could hope to capture without special techniques.

I did (although there's a relationship between dynamic range and resolution when it comes to image processing). Mostly, I meant "pull shadow information out of the image".

So I see no problem at all with throwing away a couple of stops to get a more appropriate aperture or shutter speed. How often are you photographing black cats in a rabbit hole backlit against the sun?

At higher ISO, I absolutely have a shot of my black cat (RIP) in a dimly-lit living room with a TV in the background and highlights in her eyes. The D850 would have captured this better than the D800 which I used. My other cat (more recently RIP) had a white nose and paws but relatively dark fur; I usually had to spot meter her, because Nikon's highlight metering isn't, and the white bits would blow. Flash was a bad thing, since it would reflect her eyes (green), and since she was usually being adorable when asleep she got woken by it - though some form of highlight does help with an actually black cat. I very often photograph foregrounds (sometimes indoors) with clouds in the sky behind, and since I don't like my clouds pure white, I use the dynamic range.

"That doesn't stop me from wanting a 135mm f/2 DC also."

 

- Save your money Ben. Get the Samyang 135mm f/2 instead.

Or the Sigma 135 f/1.8. Or the AI-S 135mm f/2.8. :-) The DC lens has some happy customers; mine did have a moderately large bubble in it, but Nikon UK swore blind it was "in spec", and my understanding is that the behaviour was deliberate - if you're considering one, shoot a few high contrast edges before you commit. I'm hopeful that someone might make one with an apodisation element, because I'm really interested in what this lens was trying to do (enough that it was one reason I switched from Canon, knowing that Canon had a well-regarded 135mm f/2), I just hate how it did it.

If you use a zoom lens for convenience, the technical demands can be low. However if you want near prime lens quality, you have to pay for it in terms of dollars, weight and size. If you want long lens image quality, you won't find it in an affordable super-zoom.

True, but, there are still some choices better then others in the "affordable" range. Not everyone that wants to shoot can afford the best, but then they aren't going to let that stop them from shooting. Add to that the fact that everyone' needs are not exactly the same. A case in point is Gary not liking the Sigma 17-50 because of the zoom ring's operation when shooting action, while I quite like that lens and the mid $300 price I paid for it. I consider it a better buy than the Nikon 17-55, for me, YMMV.

At higher ISO, I absolutely have a shot of my black cat (RIP) in a dimly-lit living room with a TV in the background and highlights in her eyes.

- That's not very demanding of a camera's dynamic range. I've taken perfectly good snaps of a black & white cat with my phone camera in dim artificial lighting.

It would be different if you had a white cat, or rabbit or whatever in full sunlight, with a black cat lurking 2 foot down a shaded sewer pipe, and wanted detail in the fur of both. Even then, I'm pretty sure a 14 bit lossless RAW could just about handle it.

Getting that DR or SBR looking reasonably realistic in a print would be a real challenge though.

Sorry to hear about the demise of your cats BTW.

I've posted this before, from my 'old' D800.

Really, how much more DR does anyone need?

I liked the 50 f/1.8 on my D200, but I've not tried it on my D7200 yet. It's an older AF-D, and if you listen to Thom Hogan, even the newer AF-s design is not too great on 24 MP bodies.

Meant to say... It depends how you use them. The 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is respectably sharp (if with somewhat ugly bokeh) at about f/5.6, maybe less. It arguably sharpens faster than the AF-S. On the other hand, wide open it's mush.

The AF-S has nicer booth and is vaguely acceptable at wider apertures, but arguably doesn't sharpen as much or as fast on stopping down. It's good enough at f/1.8 that I could check my D800 for the off-centre AF issue, which the AF-D wasn't.

The Sigma Art blows them out of the water, especially by f/2, and on DX I'd say even the old Sigma HSM is very competitive.

On the other hand, the series E (same optics as AF-D except coating) is almost as small as the grip, the AF-D is almost as small as a teleconverter and will fit in the pouch for the old Sigma teleconverter I once had for Canon (so I can hang it from a bag strap), the AF-S is chubbier but will still fit in a bag with most other stuff without thinking (both AF lenses would be half the size without the recess for the front element), and the 50mm Art is the ballpark size of my 24-70 Tamron (by feeling - I've not checked) and is actually and active decision to bring along. Which is how I justify having them all despite not liking 50mm much. It's why I don't have a Nikkor f/1.4 - bigger, more expensive, optically hardly better. (Arguably the 58mm is an exception, but that's doing something different.)

A modern 50mm is judged by the standard of the Sigma and the Otus, and that's a very high bar despite the price delta. I'll be interested to see what the Z glass can do.

Thanks, Joe (last Friday was the first anniversary of losing our second one, at 19 and a half; still getting over it). And yes, I have many phone photos of them (usually EC-adjusted), but if I want to pick out hairs, I need dynamic range to keep it noiseless.

Somewhere in a Wednesday thread is Antelope Canyon, with the shadows blocked at ISO64 with a D810. As ever with a recent camera, 99% of the time it's good enough, but I can still find that 1%...