2Oceans

Rodeo your probably right.

Arthur, Own the AFS 1.4 and recommend it. Not fully convinced there is much difference in acuity or autofocus speed/accuracy. There are a number of objective and subjective reviews on both lenses. The most critical comments on the D version coming from Thom Hogan when comparing it with the AFS and even though he did not gush over either lens, he pointed out the flaws of the D version when shooting wide open that is the very reason to buy a 1.4. The AFS is larger and a little easier to hold IMHO and B&H sells a refurb for about the same price as the D version. If you are ever planning to upgrade to a Z system body then think seriously about the AFS. As a proud owner of a complete set of aging Nikon auto extension tubes and dual element filters it is fair to say that backward compatibility is more of a personal decision where as compatibility going forward into the eventuality of mirrorless is more of a necessity. I would recommend the AFS for that reason. Still have two F4s film bodies, action finder, data back and such and a now 30 year old underwater housing that was last used 16 years ago to photograph great white sharks but it was a couple of Brits on that trip with Fuji S2s who won me over to digital permanently. Sad to say have not looked back but looking at the price of film and processing not complaining. Like the machine gun sound of 9 frames a second that the f4s could never muster mirrorless has silenced that as well. Good hunting.

Nick, Per Roland’s web site there were about 2400 of the Version I and 2300 of the Version II. Version II was about a kilogram lighter. If old age is a concern and it should be, paid $500 for new motors for my first gen 200-400 built in the same time frame as the 600mm version II lens being discussed just a couple of years ago using Photo Tech in New York. Some may feel that it is hard to make an argument for repairing a lens this old but in the waning light the 200-400 f4 has pretty quick autofocus compared to my other lenses with similar or overlapping focal lengths. Some of the more current glass may well be sharper at long distances but I am happy with my decision to repair the 200-400. It gets used more than the 600mm f4 vr that is the sharpest lens I have ever owned and I cant imagine that the slightly older version II is any less capable. For the time being the long DSLR telephotos will stay even as I blissfully begin my transition over to a Z mount system. I regret selling my first gen 500mm f4 AFS. It fit in my camera bag perfectly and was wicked sharp. I sold it only because it was getting older and I was concerned about future repairs but it was/is a great lens and 500mm may be the first telephoto lens I buy in a z mount when Nikon eventually builds one. That may be a while, who knows, mean while the D500/D850 get every ounce of goodness out of my current telephoto line up. Stay frosty.

JDM, Wishing you well and toasting to your good health with a fine merlot that goes well with pizza. Still learning to be ethical by avoiding stepping on glacier lillys and when faced with destitution not photographing folks who are down and out. Photography is a gift from God and a great means of expression. Don’t have any thing new to offer but do use model releases. Thanks for your thoughts. Stay frosty.

I currently own 4 lenses with the ring. 60mm, 105mm, 70-180mm, and 80-200mm. All have intact focus select rings. I gave my sister the 200mm micro and have yet to replace it mistakenly thinking that the now discontinued Sigma 180mm 2.8 would take its place. I like to shoot closeups with a 300mm so I still have options besides the 200mm. I replaced the ring on the 80-200 about 14 years ago while in San Diego at Kurts Camera Repair. I don’t think there is any question that the ring is a weak point on these lenses and I keep a piece of gaffers tape over the buttons to keep things undisturbed. Even the 80-200 stays in manual mode. Since these lenses are all optically quite good I see no reason to part with them. As well I own a complete set of now ancient Nikon auto extension tubes and that helps with close up shooting. You would have thought Nikon would have learned its lesson with respect to the MF selector ring but they still make the 200mm micro that is the best in its class and also a 105 DC f2. I think the older 60mm micro I own with the MF ring was discontinued only a few years ago. My understanding is that you can get the rings repaired no problem but of course for a price. Plastics are great up to a point. Eventually plastics out gas and become brittle. Part of the byproduct of outgassing is formaldehyde that actually contributes to the break down of some plastics so its kind of a self consuming thing. Wish this wasn’t a problems. Keeping things cool dry and ventilated may help Good hunting.

Even with the concern about astrophotography Lenstip.com had a very positive review of the Nikon Z 20mm 1.8 lens. Lenstip called the coma “forgivable” and summarized by calling it “an excellent lens that is a joy to use.” Everyone who does night sky photography sees coma in the corners of the image and you get it with all super wide angle lenses including the Valtrex 20mm lens that has lower resolution wide open when shooting night skies. I see it with the Zeiss 15mm wide open. It’s the nature of the beast but all-in-all the Nikon Z 20mm is considered by two reviews as a very good lens. Photographylife’s Nansim Mansurov feels its optical performance is superb even with coma considered and that the coma is better controlled than the DSLR 20mm F 1.8 G version. He comments “the coma performance of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S is better than any other ultra-wide angle lens I have tested so far.” Anyway its going to be my first Z lens on a Z7 body that will allow me to get the best out of the new system. Good hunting.

Marry, so sorry about the fire. I will be making the jump to Nikon mirrorless soon and have decided to split the duty between my Nikon DSLR (currently own) for long lens action and the Z system for landscape. Nikon apparently has really nailed the new Z 20mm f 1.8 in a way that cant be ignored. I plan to use it for night sky photography. I am very happy with my current Nikon 20mm and Zeiss 15mm lenses on the D850 but I think the Z system is an improvement especially for landscapes as well as the future. I hope your insurance covers you well. I would be just as upset about losing my tripod and camera bag collection. I wish you well as you recover and replace your home and belongings.

wademonahan, The D800e is the camera that changed everything. Since its release many companies have followed with high resolution bodies and even third party lens companies such as Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have had to keep up by producing quality optics that they were never known for but are now envied. You will not miss much with the D800e. It’s still an outstanding performer after 8 years and at base ISO nothing is lost but you can shoot it at ISO 3200 with results that IMHO are much better than Provia pushed to 200 or for that matter not pushed at all. It will make all of your present lenses better and also show you the limits of your glass. The newer bodies like the D850 have a deeper buffer and faster frame rate but the image quality improvements are incremental. Good hunting.

wademonahan, You may consider using a depth of field calculator and accurately measuring your distance with a tape while your body is mounted on a tripod. Your D800e has a focus point that will appear when you review the shot. In live view if you zoom in to an out of focus area you can see the depth of field focus change as you scale through the aperture settings Anyway digital allows us to immediately review images more critically than film. Your awareness of depth of field will increase since your more in the moment. Good hunting.

Polarizing a cerulean sky with an ultra wide angle lens is futile due to unevenness and as well makes the sky too dark unless that is the artistic goal. You can use a polarizer on a stream beds to turn the rocks dark chocolate or to knock down reflections and glare and to saturate colors. Its nice to have polarizers to fit all lenses including drop in filters for long lenses but use them sparingly unless you have a specific goal. Remember also that a polarizer takes away light which can be a desired effect if your trying to shoot with a slow shutter speed.

The condensate dehumidifiers will also heat up your cabinet. You can use a large version of the condensate dehumidifier to heat your home. The amount of increased temperature of a bar/rod dehumidifier is around 10 degrees and that by its nature will decrease relative humidity. The condensate dehumidifier produces heat as it condenses water and will raise the temperature of your enclosure perhaps more than the rod.

Mark, I think your idea is a really good one. Using the rod dehumidifier has my vote. I have been using a Ruggard Cabinet dehumidifier and rechargeable absorbent dehumidifiers in Pelican cases for 3 years now. The cabinet works well but is crammed full. The Pelican cases don’t allow ready visual access like a cabinet but are great for travel in the tropics. It’s not about absolute humidity and more about preserving the electronics so a little goes a long way reducing the relative humidity. If you can keep it under 60% your probably going to be OK. I don’t live on the coast anymore and my basement is water tight, cool in the mid 60s F and has a free standing dehumidifier that keeps things around 40% and adding the cabinet provides reassurance but I think your path is more cost effective and practical. The small cost of the unit pales when compared to the repair cost of your babies. I think that the increase in temperature that the “Golden Rod “ creates is insignificant and as well you don’t have to empty the reservoir. I have gone through that in my free standing office when I lived in Florida. Emptying it every 2-3 days was a pain in the but. Good hunting.

Cool, Does it come with a theremin to play while your scanning?

RaymonsC, just remember that TTL varies the light output depending on where the camera is pointed. All it does is control power output and there is no way of being certain what that output may be or that it is repeatable. Don’t believe for a second that the flash in TTL will some how magically differentially light the subject or change the quality of the light. To do that you have to modify the shape of the light and filter it. Of course that is sometimes difficult or impossible . That said you can get better consistency in manual mode because you do not have to worry that moving the camera will change the flash output. In full manual if your bouncing light you can take advantage of the full power of your flash that you can’t get to in TTL. One last advantage to manual is that you don’t have to purchase new flash guns because your not chasing the latest and greatest flash TTL system. Last thing, don’t mount the flash on the camera hot shoe. You can buy reliable manual radio triggers for the same price or less than a quality Nikon sync cord. BLUF: Full manual flash allows more control. More control is better. Good hunting.

RaymondC, I would recommend going completely manual with the flash and the camera. You will have better control that way. Good online reading on the subject can be had at Strobist. David Hobby who runs the site emphasizes manual control and low cost solutions. A good read that might help you is Outdoor Flash Photography by John Gerlach. As Rodeo said your cameras will control and limit sync speed if left to its own devices. Manual will allow you to over ride the speed. I think 250th is the normal upper limit on some Nikon gear depending on the body. Good hunting.

Mike, I am in agreement with you. That line was in reference to the $100 bargain long lenses found in the back of those now defunct magazines that I used to pour over. Just saw on the B&H web site, they have similar glass in the $100 + - price range made by Vivitar and Bower. Sorry for any confusion.

Remember the long fixed aperture lenses you would find in the back of Shutterbug and Popular Photography. That is what some of us could afford at one point. The Canon versions will be optically superior. My first good long lens was the Nikon 500mm f4 P that cost 2 grand and used the TC 14b to shoot Provia pushed to ISO 200. At that ISO the lens was always shot wide open It was manual focus but was sharp like all current Nikon 500mm lenses. Galen Rowell used the same lens. It is interesting that with all the technical sophistication with VR, OS, IS etc. that any discussion of long lens technique or support is some how lost. Rick Sammon’s promo video on the Canon USA web site has him hand holding the 800mm. Sorry, I just don see it, but I like Rick Sammon and hope he continues to be a successful force in photography so I watched the whole video. Canon USA advertises the lens as “ideal for bird, wildlife, outdoor sports, and aviation photography”. Most folks seldom shoot at ISO 12,000 but who knows. Maybe ironing out the noise at high ISOs is just another engineering problem to overcome. The ability to optically control depth of field is lost with fixed aperture but then it may be what folks can afford and that is not a bad thing.

For a first time long lens owner I imagine that the 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses will be affordable. I owned a Vivitar Series 1 600mm f8 cat 27 years ago shooting Fujichrome and Ektachrome . It was a great first long lens that is still available today at auction at close to the same price. I don't see a tripod collar on these new Canon models and I cant imagine using them in beautiful light at 5:30 AM and 9:30 PM during the summer at high latitudes or any where else where the light is waxing or waning for that matter. Still its something. No tripod collar?

The 60-600mm Sigma looks like a very good lens but your only going to get that on a tripod. The 60-600 is almost 6 pounds and can’t be considered a walk around lens. The Tamron 100-400 is a joy to carry and a far sight better than its predecessors and certainly in time will be surpassed. Still shooting any long lens hand held is less than optimal and probably obviates any improved resolution.

Tommarcuis, The Tamron 100-400 is a much different size lens than either the Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary or sport or either version 1 or 2 of the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron 100-400 is small, affordable, relatively sharp and has an optional albeit vestigial tripod foot. You would probably not go wrong with either Tamron or Sigma but if your planning to photograph small birds then the reach of a 150-600 makes it a better over all choice. Keep in mind that both 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses are slow and limit you in the early morning or end of the day. From personal experience the Tamron 100-400 is an easy lens to carry around compared to the Nikon 200-400mm f4, 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 teles but may be all you need. Good hunting.

Ben, I have been using an older Gitzo 1325 (series 3) with a base plate for many years now. I added a safety plate underneath it to make sure that the base plate would not pop off the spider. Mine does not have G lock legs like the current series 3 Gitzo systematic pods but it has never let me down. It fits my 5 foot nine inch body. The general rule of thumb is that you should take your height and subtract 14 inches to get the correct tripod height. So you need a pod that is around 60 inches with no column so that your standing erect while shooting. The newer gitzo series 3 GT 3533LS pod should get you the height you need. Don’t spend $ 800 for a tripod that doesn’t fit when you can spend $900 and get it right. If you buy Really Right Stuff or Gitzo you will never have to replace it. I shot a 500mm f4 and currently shoot a 200-400 f4 on my Gitzo series 3 and a 600mm f4 Vr on a more modern series 5. A lens as stellar as a 300mm f 2.8 deserves a Really Right Stuff or Gitzo series 3 pod that will never leave you questioning or you embarrassed. I occasionally have seen folks at Bosque del Apache or the Washington Mall with a fast 300mm tele mounted on a series 1 Gitzo and wondered why the photographer chose to cut corners with a very expensive but inadequate tripod. Good Hunting.

Derek, B&H should take care if for you. My returns of new and used items have always been honored. I have returned a well used, not refurbed, camera to Adorama many years ago that was just too beaten up for my taste but was otherwise functioning fine. They took it back without batting an eye. I am surprised that the refurb is busted. If you buy another used body you might ask their staff to go over it for you prior to shipping. KEH has gone over gear for me when I have asked about it. Good hunting.

jakemaryniak, One can use UV filters like and in addition to a lens cap. You can take the filter off anytime you want. If you have it you can use it when you need it. They do protect the front element and to some degree the filter threads. For panoramics all the auto features are turned off and the filters especially a polarizer are stowed. As well, have never seen any published objective findings that high quality B&W filters made with schott glass or any of the superb optical quality stuff manufactured in Japan degrade image quality. Good hunting

sjmurray, Sorry for your troubles. Have never had a rear cap stuck but have had problems with front caps to teleconverters sticking. You have to visually confirm that the dot on the cap matches with the telconverter. It’s can’t be done by feel. Just was checking a lens yesterday and discovered a Zeiss cap for my 15mm on a Tokina 10-17 zoom fish eye. I just could not let that set, elsewise the magnet poles of the earth would reverse, so I quickly changed them. Good Hunting

Rodeo, The best advice is to know more about the product than the seller. Not a problem with most of the folks here. Every now and then one can hit a home run or find something at auction that is too rare or at a real bargain. Not a big auction user but years ago I got a perfect G340 that had a like new Kirk BH1 head for less than the cost of either new. The head became a favorite in lieu of owned Arca Swiss and RRS heads and for some things like work in rocky streams aluminum legs provide superior anchor and can tolerate getting scratched up more severely than a carbon fiber pod with its layered construction. Since I’m not a pro there is no need to justify what is purchased but still a bargain is a bargain. It seems that Gitzo is now out of the metal tripod business so that will always be a consideration. But parts still abound for many Bogen and Gitzo pods and that is a reason for going with those two makes. Hopefully all my babies will have spare parts well into the future. Good hunting.