chuck

<p>I can definitely say at f/2.8 my 16/2.8 AIS is nowhere near as sharp at the corners as the shots illustrated in the Nikongear.net page above. The edges for my lens are so soft at f/2.8 that they look conspicuously soft and mushy in the view finder and on the camera back LCD monitor. I probably have a bad sample.</p>

What would be the best fullframe fisheye option for Nikon?

<p>Hmmm, that's a possibility. What is the expected of focal field for a fisheye? Is it extremely concave or convex? I assumed it was intended to be somewhat flat like most lenses.<br> Also, since I plan to use this lens for night sky photography, it would be a major problem if when the center is focused on infinity, the edges are focused nowhere near infinity.</p>

<p>I just got a second hand 16mm f/2.8 AIS lens. The lens has a rear mounted filter installed. I took some exploratory pictures with. At f/2.8, the center sharpness was great, but the peripheral sharpness is disappointing to say the least. It is so unsharp that it looks quite soft and fuzzy even on the camera's rear LCD display. At f/11, the edge sharpens up quite a lot, but only compared to f/2.8. It is still quite soft and showing lots of radial chromatic aberration is looked at closely.<br> Is this normal for this lens? </p>

<p>Tech improvements in other areas may be slowing, but in ISO sensitivity it is still going pretty fast. even low end D3400 now has twice the high ISO speed of D810. D5 has 10 times the ISO speed of D810. For those interested in astrophotography, this is a important improvement.</p>

<p>I was under the impression the actual implementation of Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron versions of piezoelectric vibration motors were quite different in order for each to avoid the patents of others that came before it. </p>

<p>Wouldn't there be a problem with parallax when stitching together image shot through different lenses?<br> I am still not clear on what Nikon hope to accomplish with this?</p>

<p>Does the built in flash on the D700 also blow out the exposure? If so, the camera's TTL circuits is probably bad. If not, try a different flash on the shoe.</p>

<p>I got the 200-500f/5.6E lens. This lens is too large to carry dangling off of the camera's lens mount. While using the tripod foot as a carrying handle works, it is not convenient. There are no strap lugs on the lens. Anyone know of any accessories or any improvisations that would let me attach a strap to the lens?</p>

150-600 is probably a good birding choice. But why 70-200? Sure, it is probably a significantly better lens, but is 70-300 distinctly not good enough for you?

Thanks for everyone's responses. I think I should clarify how I intend to use the tracking mount. I like to take one or two solo, 1-2 week long camping/hiking/photography trips a year. These always involve flying to a region and driving to a several locations, camping a couple of days at each location. So there is a limited amount of equipment I can bring. A astro-telescope with its own tripod is somewhat out of the question. A carry-on suitcase sized camera bag and a tripod in a duffle is about all that can be accommodated. I have a D810. It nominally go up to ISO 51200. Long exposures at above ISO 12800 is too grainy for normal photography but that may not matter too much with deep sky objects. I've had reasonable luck shooting andromeda Galaxy using ISO 12800, 200mm f/2.8 and around 4 second exposure with no tracking. So I was thinking with basic tracking, I might extend the exposure with a 500mm lens to several minutes. I am not thinking of 20-30 minute exposures. Is a basic tracking unit that mounts on a normal tripod sufficient for this?

I snapped up an AI-s 16mm fisheye on eBay. It has not yet arrived. However, my question is about the seller's statement that the lens does not take any filters. I was under the impression the lens was mostly identical to the AF-d 16mm fisheye, lacking only AF. The latter takes rear mounted filters. Does the AI-s lens take rear mounted filters?

I am looking for a sky tracking mount to allow me to use a 500mm f/5.6 lens to photograph deep sky objects. Does anyone have recommendations?

I would say 24-70 has been my most commonly used landscape lens. If I didn't really take a particular LS completely seriously, I might use 24-120 for convenience. But if I want low flare, better color rendition, I use the 24-70. Off the top of my head, the ratio of LS I took with different lenses are: 24-70 : 24-120 : 70-200 : 14-24 : 200-500 30 : 10 : 5 : 2 : 1

I am looking to replace a 18 year old bogen aluminum tripod for travel purposes. It's main drawbacks are: 1) It's not really that light or compact when everything is retracted. 2) loosening and tightening the knob on each leg section is tedious. And they don't tighten down sufficiently to always prevent legs sections from retracting by themselves. 3) it does not easily allow the camera to be placed very close to the ground, or off to one side from the centerline of the tripod. 4) it is not totally noodly, but it could be stiffer. I am interested in replacing it with something newer that would address these shortcomings. If one leg could detach to become a monopod it would be an appreciated bonus. Any suggestions?

<p>What is the condition of the D800?</p>

<p>Unfortunate, <em>Equally bright </em>and <em>Nikon</em> already limit you to but 3 zoom alternatives:<br /> the 35-70f/2.8 (smaller and lighter), the 28-70f/2.8 (Big and heavy), and the 24-70f/2.8 VR (Bigger and heavier).<br /> So there is not much more that can be said about zooms.<br> About primes. Do you really want to be changing lenses within that standard zoom range in a wedding shoot? </p>

<p>Perhaps someone pranked you by gluing the back cap on.</p> <p>If I recall, it has a plastic mount. I can't imagine how plastic cap can get so firmly stuck on plastic mount unless someone glued them together.</p>

<p>Hmm, I realize one could always take a test shot. But it seems to me that LV is of little added value to still photography if it can't preview of final exposure before the shutter click.<br> One more question. D600 seems to not always exposure for something like neutral average density in A and S modes. For example, shots taken with recommended exposure after sunset is distinctly underexposed overall, with the curve squeezed to the left, as if the camera knew it was dark out and tries to mimic what the eye sees with its exposure. D810 doesn't do that.<br> Is there a setting on the D600 that is doing this, or is it a faulty meter?</p> <p> </p>

The LV on my second hand D600 seem to automatically adjust the gain to show the same exposure regardless of the exposure compensation or the actual exposure of the image. Is there a way to set the LV to show the actual exposure as set?

<p>DS: It is correct. The intensity of each FP flash pulse is constant. But the number of pulses that occurs during open shutter decreases with increasing shutter speed. So the total integrated flash output that would be captured by the sensor decreases as the shutter speed increases. This is why in FP mode flash loses range with higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>I would like to pre-announce the future development of a camera with a 431Mpixel sensor by some brand, to be released at certain appropriate time in the future. Please be appropriately excited.</p>

<p>Andrew:</p> <p>The lens can do two types of movements. One is shift, where you translate the entire optical element train perpendicularly to the long axis of the lens. The other is tilt, where you pitch or yaw the optical elements so the central axis of the optical element train is no longer perpendicular to the plan of the sensor or film.<br> Yes, on the Nikon lens you can shift and tilt at the same time. <br> You can also rotate the lens while it is on the camera so the plane of the shift lines up with whatever object you want to photograph. However, the plane in which you can tilt is fixed with respect the plane in which you can shift. You can't hold the plane of shift fixed while changing the plane of tilt, at least not on the fly. AS Shun indicated, You have to disassemble the lens to change the orientation of the plane of shift with respect to the plane of tilt. This is probably most safely done by Nikon, who will charge you $400 for the privilege, or so I was told by several people who bitched extensively about it. Furthermore, you have to send the lens back for another $400 hit each time when you want to adjust the angle.<br> Canon doesn't charge you anything for doing this because it is a built-in feature of the lens. There are also third party tilt-shift lenses which cost 1/2 as much as Nikon's TC-E lenses, and which lets you adjust the relative orientations of the two planes on the fly.<br> I actually don't think it need to be mechanically very complicated to preserve all functions of the lens while letting the angle between tilt and shift be adjustable on the fly over a 90 degree range, which is all you need. But Nikon is determine to have its pound of flesh, I meant $400.</p> <p> </p>

<p>You sure you are not taking about the ability to change the angle between the axis of shift and tilt?</p>

It would have to be something fairly major and prestigious if Nikon felt Itnecessary to deploy the teaser about d5 to steal the thunder. Maybe yet another new eos1d iteration? Or less likely, a full fledged professional body from Sony with some important new trick?