I'm convinced of the pro glass

-

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

Really, how much more DR does anyone need?

First off, that's a great shot, info out the wazoo! But to answer your question, I think it depends on the image and who you ask, but more than my D200 is capable of. ;o)

Well, one thing is for sure: the grass is always greener somewhere else.

You sum up the pros and cons pretty well. In the end, whatever way you go, it's a compromise. Not just FX vs DX....every lens is a compromise. Maybe go back to what started the analysis in the first place: sure, the 70-200 f/4VR is better than the 18-140VR. That is no surprise (despite the numbers DxO loves to spit out). The real question: is it better enough to justify spending a serious amount of cash to make the step up? Or was the 18-140VR good enough all along for what you want it to be, even if it's not perfect?

 

I have more lenses than I reasonably need, but increasingly find myself picking up the same lenses - simply because they work for me. None of them is king of the hill and all of them are those that people claim "do not do justice to my D810". But they get me the images I want, and work the way I like to work. Sometimes the best lens isn't the one that comes out on top in a lab-test, after all.

I got the 70-200/4 because the 18-140 was just too slow for night games under lights. I was shooting at ISO 12800, 1/500 sec, f/5.6. I wanted to get the ISO down. I really wanted the even faster f/2.8 lens, but I had to draw the line at its weight, 2x that of the f/4 lens (and 2x cost). Old man with a bad back can't hold the kind of weight I used to when I was younger. Even though it was only one stop, it helped a LOT. Actually it was probably more like 1-1/2 to 2 stops, as many of the reports show less light transmission in the 18-140 than marked.

I first replaced the 18-140 with my old AF 70-210/4. But it frustrated me by loosing focus and hunting at the worst times, the soccer goal shots :mad: Its frustrating unreliability on those important shots drove me to replace the AF 70-210/4 with the AF-S 70-200/4 VR.

I was actually on the fence between the 24-120/4 and 70-200/4 lenses. I decided that I wanted the long end covered with the 70-200, more than the short end with the 24-120. But in use, I realized that I made a mistake, the 24-120 would have been a better match for how I used the 18-140 for sports. It was the short 70mm end of the 70-200 that was too long, for use on the sidelines of a football/soccer/lacrosse field. I lost a LOT of close in shots that I had easily gotten with the 18-140. On a DX camera, the short end should be down at 40-45mm. Note the caluclated DX equivalent to the FX 70-200 is 47-133.

Having said all that, the 70-200 works for another reason. Being old, I am not as quick nor as agile as I used to be, so I need more time to get out of the way of the players headed towards me, and the 70mm end forces me to do that. When the players get too large in the viewfinder, it is time to get out of the way. With the 18-140, I used to let the players get way too close to me, before moving, and that was dumb.

But for shooting during the day, when I have plenty of light, I like the flexibility of the 18-140.

So as you said, not technically the best lens, but the best lens for general use, for me.

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.

In my experience, the AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.8D(I actually don't have an example of the latter) is somewhat inferior to the 50mm f/1.8 AI-s, and I think that the 50mm f/2(pre-AI and AI) is better than the AI-s at f/2.

If Nikon had continued "tweaking" the AI-S design rather than using the Series E design(which, IMO, is a good lens but gets more respect than it probably deserves) the pre-AF-S 50mm f/1.8s probably would have a better reputation than it does now.

The 50mm f/1.4 AF(pre-G) is, of course, a different story and is descended directly from the AI/AI-s design. I have a pile of 50mm f/1.4s ranging from some very early Nikkor-S fluted focus ring ones up through a first gen AF(thin focus ring, twist minimum aperture lock) and while you can see the affect of improved coatings on the AI-s and AF, I'd consider them all to range from "pretty good" to "really good."

The 58mm f/1.4 is a really intriguing lens to me, and it's supposed to be across the board better than any of the current AF-S 50mm lenses. Of course, it's also a lot more expensive than the ART and Zeiss offerings, and from what I've seen it's still not as good as those. Of course, I'm talking out my rear on that and just basing my opinion on online reviews. If my local camera store had one in their rental pool, I'd rent it for a weekend just to see what the fuss is about(or even just try it in the store) but they don't...

Really, how much more DR does anyone need?

What does the underside of that bridge look like ;)

As it is it's the area beyond 50mm where I'm lacking on the D7200 for some lens speed. Suggestions welcome, and hopefully my local rental joint will have it so that I can give it a spin.

Sigma 50-100mm 1.8. Try and rent one..... and then go and buy one......:D

It's a big, awesome lens, and not too spendy!

In my experience, the AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.8D(I actually don't have an example of the latter) is somewhat inferior to the 50mm f/1.8 AI-s, and I think that the 50mm f/2(pre-AI and AI) is better than the AI-s at f/2.

I believe you. I understand that the f/1.8 was designed to be small (for some reason) rather than necessarily for optical quality. It therefore particularly frustrates me that the AF-D (and indeed the AF-S) have quite such an indented front element - I'd like them much more if they were about 1" shorter, especially since the AF-S comes with a hood anyway. It's perhaps not as great a crime as the older 90mm Tamron macro, which is a macro (you know, lenses for which working distance really matter) with a hugely indented front element. Leica seem to be unusual in designing slower aperture lenses to be optically better; I sometimes wish Nikon would.

The 58mm f/1.4 is a really intriguing lens to me, and it's supposed to be across the board better than any of the current AF-S 50mm lenses. Of course, it's also a lot more expensive than the ART and Zeiss offerings, and from what I've seen it's still not as good as those. Of course, I'm talking out my rear on that and just basing my opinion on online reviews. If my local camera store had one in their rental pool, I'd rent it for a weekend just to see what the fuss is about(or even just try it in the store) but they don't...

Well, it's a lot cheaper (about 2x, when I just looked) than the Otus. But it's also about 3x the price of the Art. It has, by all account, very nice rendering what it's not is as tack sharp as the other two premium 50mm. The Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC is also supposed to be very good, although the LoCA scares me a bit. But off centre, in terms of sharpness, the 58mm is comparable at f/5.6 to the Art at f/1.4. Wide open, it's got a bit of the 85mm AF-D about it - soft off-centre, which is fine if it's an effect you like (though I don't actually like the rendering of the 85mm AF-D), but I morally object to buying an f/1.4 lens that's optically awful at that aperture. Sharpness isn't everything, but modern lenses seem to be proving that you don't need to lose sharpness to get good rendering. Since sharpening tends to mess with bokeh and adds noise, I'd always rather soften a sharp lens in post-processing than the reverse. Some people clearly like it, though.

First off, that's a great shot, info out the wazoo!

- Thanks Carl.

I actually haven't tried to make an HDR or pseudo-HDR image from the RAW file. I was just showing that the shadow detail is there if it's wanted.

Quite honestly, I don't think the bit of image under the bridge adds anything pictorially. So digging out that extra shadow detail in the crop was just a technical exercise.

- Thanks Carl.

I actually haven't tried to make an HDR or pseudo-HDR image from the RAW file. I was just showing that the shadow detail is there if it's wanted.

 

Quite honestly, I don't think the bit of image under the bridge adds anything pictorially. So digging out that extra shadow detail in the crop was just a technical exercise.

Well, if I were standing in the photographers position , and saw that nice, colorful, boat moving toward me, I don't think my attention would be on the interior surface of that bridge which I'd be unlikely to see while staring a the boat anyway. So, while we know there's detail in there, who cares?

Well, if I were standing in the photographers position , and saw that nice, colorful, boat moving toward me, I don't think my attention would be on the interior surface of that bridge which I'd be unlikely to see while staring a the boat anyway. So, while we know there's detail in there, who cares?

- Well exactly. That picture was just first to come to hand when I was looking for one that had a loooong tonal range. I couldn't care less about seeing every black-painted brick and step under that bridge, but apparently some people do.

- Well exactly. That picture was just first to come to hand when I was looking for one that had a loooong tonal range. I couldn't care less about seeing every black-painted brick and step under that bridge, but apparently some people do.

Okay, I went hunting until I found Nikon Wednesday #47 from 2016. Here are a couple of my shots from Antelope Canyon, taken with a D810 at ISO64:

Obviously they're very heavily tone mapped, because otherwise either the light on the sand (and especially where the sun hits) is blown out, or everything else is black. I couldn't HDR stack (well) because the sand was moving. And the lifted shadows are blocked, although possibly worse than they could have been if I'd been a little less ambitious.

A lot of images aren't like this, but I still claim I'll take all the dynamic range I can get, and find ways to use it!

I couldn't HDR stack (well) because the sand was moving.

Not a good reason at all - try automatic ghost removal available in most HDR programs. You define one image that's being used as a base and the program will use its information to remove ghosts from the final image. At least in photomatix, this works like a charm. I haven't been to Antelope Canyon myself but from the pictures you present, I am fairly certain that I would bracket heavily - probably 9 images at 1EV intervals (or even 7 at 2EV - which would cover all the dynamic range available). I can always discard what I don't need later ;)

In images like the two above, I am not sure though I would want much more detail in the walls as they live mostly by the contrast between the lit sand and the darker surroundings.

As to RJ's image - though I am known to crave shadow detail, in that particular one whether the underside of the bridge is black or not doesn't change my view of the overall image one bit.

Well, if I were standing in the photographers position , and saw that nice, colorful, boat moving toward me, I don't think my attention would be on the interior surface of that bridge which I'd be unlikely to see while staring a the boat anyway. So, while we know there's detail in there, who cares?

Pictorialy not, but It is if you're bragging about dynamic range.

I believe you. I understand that the f/1.8 was designed to be small (for some reason) rather than necessarily for optical quality. It therefore particularly frustrates me that the AF-D (and indeed the AF-S) have quite such an indented front element - I'd like them much more if they were about 1" shorter, especially since the AF-S comes with a hood anyway. It's perhaps not as great a crime as the older 90mm Tamron macro, which is a macro (you know, lenses for which working distance really matter) with a hugely indented front element. Leica seem to be unusual in designing slower aperture lenses to be optically better; I sometimes wish Nikon would.

The Series E 50mm f/1.8 is the third smallest lens Nikon has made, right behind the 50mm f/2.8GN and the tiny 45mm f/2.8 AI-P.

By contrast, the AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.8(D) is about the same size as the AI-S version, but of course weighs next to nothing since it's almost all plastic. The f/1.4 is a bit more substantial since, in addition to having more glass, it also has some more metal.

(BTW, as always with Nikon, terminology can be a mess. When I talk about the 50mm f/1.8 AI-S I should be specific in saying that I'm referring to the one that is NOT a Series E lens, as all Series E are AI-S...and any AF lens with an aperture ring is also an AI-S lens even though it's not customarily referred to as such).

In any case, every 50mm-ish Macro/Micro lens I've owned has had a deeply recessed front element, and with Nikon that goes back to the pre-AI lens that I use on bellows sometimes(BTW, I'll go to my grave saying that it's better than the 55mm f/2.8 AI-s that everyone goes nuts over). It is somewhat of an annoyance, but usually when you're getting close enough that element recession is a problem you really should think about reversing the lens(another time where the unit-focusing pre-AI and AI lenses are better than the AI-s).

Okay, I went hunting until I found Nikon Wednesday #47 from 2016. Here are a couple of my shots from Antelope Canyon, taken with a D810 at ISO64:

 

[ATTACH=full]1272013[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]1272014[/ATTACH]

 

Obviously they're very heavily tone mapped, because otherwise either the light on the sand (and especially where the sun hits) is blown out, or everything else is black. I couldn't HDR stack (well) because the sand was moving. And the lifted shadows are blocked, although possibly worse than they could have been if I'd been a little less ambitious.

 

A lot of images aren't like this, but I still claim I'll take all the dynamic range I can get, and find ways to use it!

The second shot is extreme Andrew, because essentially that little shaft of sunlight hitting the floor is the only source of light.

I would have liked to be able to play with the RAW file in a decent 16 bit image editor though, before declaring the extreme shadow detail non-existent.

Two solutions as I see it:

1) A tiny amount of fill flash. Maybe just the afterglow from setting the popup flash to '- -'.

2) More tricky. A double exposure using a 'pre-flashed' frame. What you basically do is faintly 'fog' a frame uniformly with a very low level exposure; then expose the picture proper on top of it. Having a translucent cover for your lens makes this a reasonably easy task. The tricky bit is getting the fogging first exposure just right.

Anyway, it's another technique to have in the armoury once you've played with it to get the feel of it.

It would indeed be interesting what DXO's point RAW conversion would do for it.

Is there anything in the RAW file of the hot-spot that isn't effectively 255 (well 16 bit eq.) ?

Um. This was using DxO local contrast adjustments (whatever they call their dynamic toning, which should be region-aware), although I used their automation rather than the U point thing. I think I exported a 16-bit TIFF to Photoshop and tried further tweaking. The default rendering would be a light shaft surrounded by black. Note that I didn't blow the sky in one of the images, either.

It's not that I want to lighten the blacks any further, it's that the lightened black areas a blocking with solid colour. I think that's me running out of sensor data, although I guess something in the processing path may have truncated things (and maybe I should have gone 32-bit). Flash might well have helped, with possible additional shadows - but I was with a group of photographers on a photo tour, and I suspect they'd have killed me. (It's out for other cases where I'd want the range.) A longer background exposure in this case would probably have helped; I might actually have one. I'll have another look and see whether I can do better. But for this particular raw file, I think I'm out of data.

Fogging should effectively add a constant amount to all the tones. In this case, I think it means I'd have two indistinguishable shades of dark grey rather than two indistinguishable near blacks, but it's true that there's a little crushing in the raw output, so it might help.

I think the highlight isn't quite white (I was trying to stop it being - there was some colour tone). I'll check.

And yes, it's an extreme case. But one I wanted to capture! 99% of the time, it's fine (and a Canon would be fine too...), but for the 1% I want my photo!

I'll try to find time to knock out a better version and see what I can do, if only as an exercise.

5 digit ISO

 

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.

@rj mentioned.

Tell me more about your impressions with the 35 1.8 on the D7200. I'm not really interested in fast action stuff as much as IQ in slower, more deliberate situations. My copy will be here tomorrow, and I'm hoping the bokeh is decent for general use and the occasional shot of friends and family. I don't pay a lot of attention to charts, etc, but I do pay attention to owners opinions.

I hear you loud and clear when you talk about gear weight when we age, as I'm 79 myself, and lighter is better!

Tell me more about your impressions with the 35 1.8 on the D7200. I'm not really interested in fast action stuff as much as IQ in slower, more deliberate situations. My copy will be here tomorrow, and I'm hoping the bokeh is decent for general use and the occasional shot of friends and family. I don't pay a lot of attention to charts, etc, but I do pay attention to owners opinions.

 

I hear you loud and clear when you talk about gear weight when we age, as I'm 79 myself, and lighter is better!

I like the 35/1.8. But I look at it from the point of view of it being up to THREE stops faster than my 18-140, for shooting indoors. The 35/1.8 is my low light companion lens for the slower 18-140.

I looked at some of the pics shot with the 35 at ISO 3200 vs. the 18-140 at ISO 12800 on the D7200. High ISO made for a bad comparison of the lenses. I cropped into 1/16 of the frame and could easily see the eye. Not as sharp as a pro lens, but plenty sharp enough. I think I was running into ISO noise issues more so than sharpness. I have to try an A/B test in bright sunlight at a moderate 3 digit ISO, rather than the 4 digit ISO I was using in the gym.

While I'm younger than you, I have an injured back, and now an injured knee. :(

I made the decision earlier this year to switch my primary system to micro 4/3, to reduce my kit weight to something that I can carry without pain. And to also make a kit that is easier to carry on vacation. I looked long and hard at the D3400 + 18-55, as a lightweight kit, and being able to use my Nikon glass. But all the Nikon glass that I have just makes the D3400 HEAVY. But then most of my lenses are older film or FX lenses. I only saved weight in the camera and the kit lens. The m4/3 gave me more capability in an even smaller/lighter package.

For comparison, this is a pic of my 2 primary cameras.

Left - Olympus E-M1 + Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6

Right -Nikon D7200 + 18-140

The Olympus went on vacation with me.

I use the Nikon D7200 where it performs better than the m4/3, low light night sports/events. The 70-200/4 is a dream lens to use :)

Although right now, until my knee heals, the Nikon is on the shelf, too heavy to carry while using a cane.

The even smaller and lighter EM10 + 14-42 zoom is like carrying a medium size P&S.