skip_wilson

<p>Hello,<br> I have the Nikon D 7100 and am wanting to hear peoples' experiences and thoughts with Nikon's macro 85/3.5G ED VR vs Tamron SP 90/2.8 Di VC USD macro vs the Tokina macro 100/2.8 AT-X M100 AF PRO D AF. DXO rates the Tokina higher in some areas at nearly $400 less expensive albeit without VR compared to the Tamron. Is this too good to be true? Is the Tokina lens this good or going to be updated any time soon making this lens less desireable? Are there any downsides I should be aware of before buying the Tokina without the VR? What do people think is the best of these three for macro of flowers and occasionally bugs? I might use one of these for occasional portraits, as well. Thank you. Skip</p>

<p>My last question in trying to narrow a purchase down is how people feel about the Nikkor micro 60/2.8 vs Nikkor micro 85/3.5 . Again, my main use would be for macro( shooting flowers and occasionally bugs), but also having it available as a relatively fast prime for occasional portrait shots of grandkids and family members. Should the loss of one stop of light with the 85/3.5 dissuade me from using it for macro work vs the 60/2.8? Is the extra working space distance with the 85/ 3.5 something that would sway one to get that lens over the 60/2.8? Does the VR on the 3.5 add that much working with macro? It normally wouldn't be turned on with a tripod in macro use but would be useful if handheld. Does the 85/3.5 have much going for it when used for portrait work? The focal length is a bit long for that and I hear the bokeh suffers compared to the 60/2.8. What are peoples' thoughts? I'm getting close in my decision between these two lenses. Thanks Skip</p>

<p>My last question here is what people feel about comparison of the Nikkor 40/2.8 macro and the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro? Does the 60/2.8 offer that much more above the 40/2.8 with its increased cost? The shooting distance is 2+ inches more for the 60 but is it that much better for macro shooting and for using for portraits, too? I'm figuring on buying one of these two lenses for mainly macro (mainly flowers, but some bugs) and need some help. Thanks Skip</p>

<p>I'm sorry. On my above post I meant to say that the two lenses for comparison were the Nikkor 40/2.8 macro and the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro Skip</p>

<p>If I were to choose between the Nikkor 60/2.0 macro vs the Nikkor 40/2.0 macro which one might be a better choice? They both work with all metering modes automatically and give a mag ratio of 1:1 without extension tubes as I understand and while one may enjoy a 2+ inch increase in working space or focusing distance with the 60/2.8 there is an increase in cost. I think neither have VR. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know the 60/20 macro was a lens from the late 1980's and does the more recent 40/2.8 macro have any advantages weighing toward it in the decision of which lens to buy? Thanks Skip</p>

<p>I used to have a used Nikkor micro 55/2.8 AiS manual focus but it didn't meter for auto exposure, Wouter. I think that was with my old D90. Does it truly meter for auto for exposure on the D7100? The diaphragm leaves got stuck and it was sold eventually. I'm willing to try another 55/2.8 AiS micro lens again if it really does meter for exposure with the D7100. How do people feel about the Nikon 40/2.8 micro compared to the used 55/2.8 AiS? The latter lens is proving hard to find at Adorama and KEH used unless they are in poor condition. Thanks Skip</p>

<p>Hi to all,<br> I am looking to purchase an HDR program and I have Windows 7 Professional version on my computer and Photoshop Elements 11. I have a Nikon D7100 that can exposure autobracket +/- 3 stops. I've heard that PhotoMatix Pro and PhotoMatix Essentials are good HDR programs. I would like anybody's opinion of that product or others with which you have had experience. Does the Pro version offer any significant advantages over the Essentials? Thanks in advance. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Hi to all,<br> I shoot with Nikon D7100 and have the Nikkor 16-85 and Nikkor 70-200/4 lenses. I wish to be able to photo flowers, etc. with more magnification than currently with my 70-200 lens. What are peoples' opinions regarding using Canon's well-regarded close up filter, Canon 500D, versus an extension tube eg Nikon's PK series versus spending more money for Nikon's micro lenses eg 60/2.8 or 105/2.8? I wouldn't be doing a lot of macrophotography probably to justify spending $5-900 on a macro lens so I'm wondering how well the extension tubes would be as an alternative and what size and brand used with my above camera and lenses? Reviews in Adorama say Nikon's PK tubes don't fit on G lenses. Is that the case? Or would Canon's 500D closeup filter on my 70-200 be a reasonable alternative. Thanks in advance. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Bob,<br> You mentioned not taking the time to drive to Homer on the Kenai due to time constraints. Am I missing much on the drive there or in seeing Homer vs. Seward, the town, and the Kenai Fjords NP cruises out of there and the Alaska Wildlife Conservancy Center? Does it take long to get to the Turnagain Arm to access those Fjord NP cruises? Does Soldatna offer anything in particular to offset the time it takes to get there if one weren't going on to Homer? Thank you in advance. Your last post was very helpful. Skip</p>

<p>thank you for your responses. I suspect I will go for the new Kenko 1.4 Pro DGX. The prices for used Nikon TC 14 E ll and lll are still beyond what I want to pay and there doesn't seem to be much availablility for them privately sold. I appreciated peoples' input. Skip</p>

<p>Hi to you,<br> I have a Nikon D7100 body and plan to use my Nikkor AF-S 70-200 mm 1:4G ED VR telephoto lens. I am going to Alaska and won't be planning to rent a longer lens but am strongly considering getting the Kenko 1.4X teleconverter. My problem is that there are several models out there and I want to make sure I'm getting the best and latest version. KEH, Adorama and B&H all list various models. What are the differences between the Kenko 1.4X teleplus MC4 AF-D DGX, the Kenko Pro 300 AF-S ,the Kenko Pro 300 DG and the Kenko Pro 300 DGX ? Are there any of these models that aren't compatible with my set up and have there been any concerns with performance issues mating the Kenko with my body and lens? Prior posts on Adorama Kenko site had expressed some concerns with the Pro 300 DGX not fitting up tightly against the body and some pins sticking that affected proper exposure. Which of these Kenko teleconverter models would you suggest for me? Thank you for your thoughts and experiences. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Hi All,<br> Several family members and I are planning an Alaskan trip in mid July 2016. We are taking the Northern Passages and Glacier Bay cruise through Un-Cruise tours from Juneau to Sitka over 7 days. That itinerary is pretty well set but I am wondering what suggestions you have for an extra 1-1/2 week extension after the cruise on to the mainland? We plan to go to Denali from Anchourage but I don't know the time frame required and have heard a rail tour via viewing cars is less hassle than renting a van. Are there particular rail tour companies to use? Does that 1-1/2 week time frame after the criuse allow a trip to the Kenai Pennisula as well to make it worth it as well and with whom?<br> I am taking my LowePro Minitrekker backpack with my Nikon D7100 along with my Nikkor 16-85 and Nikkor 70-200 f4 lenses but don't see myself renting or using any longer telephoto than that. Would you suggest getting a tele extender ring eg Nikon 1.4X and/or are there some other less expensive but just as quality brands out there that meter and focus with my D7100? I, of course, will have my Bogen 3221 tripod with Kirk 2 Ballhead so I have agreed to carry the weight around a bit as I have over the years for a shot. <br> I would appreciate any thoughts. Thank you. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>I'll let you know my results when the hummingbirds make their way here this summer. It will be interesting to see how close my off camera flash will need to be to get good lighting on the bird at a fraction of full power . Thanks again. Skip</p>

<p>Thanks again for your responses. So... I guess my best bet when needing very fast shutter speed (eg. freeze hummingbird wings) in low ambient light (eg. shade) and shooting with a low f stop (eg. f2.8-4) is to use HSS; but realize since guide numbers aren't fully accurate here what with the fall off in guide number (ie flash distance) as the shutter speed increases, that I may very well may have to set up a remote slave flash CLOSER to the subject, with distance determined by trial and error, and be able to have my camera with its built-in flash set as a commander in -- or flash off mode further away from the subject. I would leave my slave flash on TTL and shoot with my camera in Manual mode as I usually do at a fairly low ISO. I would have my slave flash power at 1:1 power since in TTL. I don't think I would want to set my flash on any less power (eg 1:4) as then my necessary distance for good fill flash would be less than desired forcing me to have to be even closer to my hummingbird which isn't good . Do I have this right? Also, does shorter flash duration equate to less power output and if so, should I be making my flash output less than 1:1 on my slave rather than TTL? I didn't know if that made any difference if it is a continuous pulse in HSS? Thanks Skip</p>

<p>Again, thank you William W. Just to be the contrarion here; doesn't the flash set in HSS mode act as a continuous pulsed flash with a "continuous" duration during the brief time the shutter is fully open using a very fast shutter speed, so that I could or would need to use that mode, HSS, to freeze that hummingbird's wings while using fill flash in a shady setting with fast shutter speed and with a low f stop eg f2.8 or 4 to get a nice background and not have that partial band of exposure that I would get without using HSS? Skip</p>

<p>Thank you so much for that detailed, yet understandable explanation, William W. I appreciated the work you put into choosing the examples for me. That is a great way to put a point across that, in itself, is difficult to grasp at the start. One point I had difficulty fully understanding, however, was your comment about " HHS of itself not being suitable for freezing very fast motion, eg hummingbird wings." You mentioned " in a dark shooting scenario a very fast flash pulse with the flash as the key light would also be effective. Note the latter is NOT HSS" If I needed light on the flying hummingbird eg it was in shade, wouldn't I need HHS along with a very fast camera shutter speed so that I wouldn't get the band of light across my photo as I was trying to freeze the wings with the fast shutter speed when I am shooting in normal flash speed sync mode? As I understand, the flash becomes a constant pulsed light source when on HSS in order to avoid that problem. How then would I go about getting the proper set up for photographing a flying hummingbird in shade where I want to fill it with some fill flash and yet nearly freeze its moving wings? I see I would probably have to have a flash fairly close to the bird because of the falling power output of the flash in HSS and me, with the camera, further away so as not to dissuade the bird to come within "range" for the picture. Your thoughts, please. Thanks. Skip</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D7100 and have questions about shooting in high speed synch mode with my SB 600. The Nikon SB 600 speed light manual gives tables for variable flash shooting distances ranges based on various f stops, ISO and zoom-head positions ( I assume focal length lens you are using) using TTL mode without any mention of flash guide number. It also gives tables giving various guide numbers for the SB 600 flash based on, again, zoom-head position in mm, ISO and flash output in Manual mode. eg 1/1, 1/2 etc. The flash manual states that halving the shutter speed eg going from 1/500 to 1/1000 decreases the guide number by 1 EV which I believe is 1 stop of light. Bryan Peterson in his book on Proper Exposure talks about quadrupling shutter speed decreases the guide number by 1/2. My question is: if I want to calculate distance I have to be from subject (a face in bright light with flash exposure, large lens opening and very fast shutter speed eg high speed synch or using hi shutter speed with flash to catch a hummingbirds wings) to get a proper flash exposure of the subject knowing my f stop and ISO -- how do I get my guide number to calculate that distance? Do I even need to use the guide number when I shoot with TTL in high speed synch mode? Please walk me through the steps I would do to find the shooting distance I need, knowing the f stop and ISO setting and focal length setting of lens. I suspect I would usually be shooting in manual mode for my camera and TTL mode with the flash.<br> I appreciate any help and hopefully, relatively simple explanation if there is one. :) Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Many thanks to all of you for your experiences and opinions. They can always be counted on for being timely and informative and offer more cumulative experience than I have at this point. Thanks Skip</p>

<p>Many thanks for the above perspectives. Wouter, when you mention the AF-S 35 mm/1.8 DX lens are you referring to the AF-S 35/1.8 G DX lens which is about $197 ? And what would you all suggest makes the best indoor portrait lens for DX cameras such as my D7100 ? Thanks Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Could readers offer some points regarding these two lenses? Differences in build, optics, DX or FX, comparative uses, bokeh, etc. I see both seem to rate well optically but wonder does one really offer advantages over the other. I assume for indoor portraits the 50/1.8 probably is favored but would like peoples' opinions. What other uses do these lenses have beyond portraits which is probably what I would use them for in addition to my other lenses? I have a D7100 now with the 16-85 DX and the 70-200/4 and expect to stay with DX rather than go up to FX. Which one of these two primes would be suggested? Thank you. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>I thank you all for your interest and helpful input!! Between this forum and DP Reviews I have found information insightful from users more experienced than I. Right now I'm leaning toward staying DX and upgrading the D90 with the D7100 and therefore probably going with the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX and the Nikon 70-200/4 DX/FX. I had heard there were some functioning problems with the Sigma lenses and the D7100 in some cases. I hope one can reliably get a used or refurbished D7100 (any advantage of refurbished over used?) or look for a new one on E-bay. Thank you. Any last thoughts? Skip Wilson</p>

<p>Is there any advantage or reason for me to go to FX Nikon rather upgrade my D90 DX to a used Nikon 7000 or 7100 which I believe are DX? That may make a difference if I go to Nikon 17-55/2.8 and go to the Nikon 70-200/4 with a DX or go a Nikon 24-70/2.8 on the short end with the 70-200/4 if I go FX. I would probably continue to get just Nikon lenses rather than a third party lens. Thanks . Skip Wilson</p>

<p>So many options. In response to your questions, I plan to stay with my D90 rather than move to a full frame SLR but would plan to spend more on good glass instead. I have a cotton carrier single camera vest and enjoy scenic landscapes more than anything and don't see myself needing anything longer than a 200mm (approx. 300 equiv). I would be doing some touring biking and hiking along with foreign travel trips but enjoy being able to take quality pix of the grandkids and family as portraits, too. I am 65 but fit. I have an old micro Nikkor 55/ 2.8 AIS that, of course, doesn't allow me to meter through it with my D90. I use it for closeups and currently for portraits. I would be willing to get a 2.8 lens in the ranges suggested but don't see myself spending over $1500 per lens probably. Can I trust used lenses purchases for these better lenses? I usually deal with Adorama. Thanks Skip Wilson </p>

<p>Hello to all.<br> I currently have a Nikon 18-200 on my Nikon D90 SLR and am looking for a replacement lens or lenses that provide better sharpness , IQ and speed than my current lens but with about the same range of coverage. I know about the Nikon 24-70 /2.8 and its quality but on my D90 I would be losing out on my wide angle range ie. 36mm with my sensor size. Are there some equally good and proven zoom Nikon lenses that get me back to a 18 or 24mm -70mm angle of view on my D90? Does there exist an equal quality fast Nikon lens that would provide me 70-200 angle of coverage that would compliment the wide angle lens I'm asking about above? I am interested in stepping up in quality of lens and realize I will want to get two lenses rather than an all-in-one zoom that I've used over the last several years. Thank you. Skip Wilson</p>