chuck

<p>I am a little surprised you would take the plunge and buy a $1800 lens without a clear idea what coverage the lens offers on the camera you would use. I think the most crucial attribute of the lens is its coverage, maximum aperture and optical performance (within reason) ranks distant second and third.</p> <p>The 24mm end of 24-70 will always be a true 24mm, regardless of which camera you put it on. It will also always cast the same sized image. But depending on the camera, the sensor will either take the most advantage of size of the image the 24-70 would cast, or it won't. With D7100, it won't. It will take the center 67% or so of the image the lens cast. At 24mm, the lens would still cast an image which would cover a very wide field of view. But the D7100 will only use the center ~67% of it. So while the lens would still be very wide, what the D7100 can see through it won't be very wide, just moderately wide.</p> <p> </p>

Both F100 and F4 have interchangible focusing screens. I believe for the F4 there are split prism focusing screens to make manual focus fairly quick and certain. I don't think there are split prism screens designed for the F100, but those for the F4 or F5 can be modified to fit. With split prism focusing screen, MF is a lot easier and surer than people who have only tried it on a DSLR might think, particularly with a real MF era lens that has the right drag and no slop in the manual focus ring.

I need to make color adjustments to Nikon d810's raw files to get better daylight colors. The raw file looks too muddy for direct sunlight images. Is there a way to save the adjustment as a profile in light room, so I don't have to do it manually for every shot? Also, is there a way to display the color component histograms individually, instead of all stacked on top of each other? Thanks?

<p>I really don't think people would stop buying Nikon's 600mm f/4 if it were the same size, optically just as good, cost just as much, but had no ED, super ED, fluoride, or Nano crystal.<br /> <br /> The reason why those things are there is because a 600mm f/4 can't be just as big and just as good without them.<br> <br /> Admittedly, not every one of these features, like the Nanocrystal coating, would make a visible difference to every photographer's style of photography. But if it does make a little difference in some applications, and someone paste the image of the difference side by side, I bet 80% of those to whose photographic style it would make difference would want it too. But the key here the feature does indeed make a physical difference under certain circumstances. It's not all hot air.<br> <br /> Is there some slight marketing effect in putting these acronyms in gold lettering on a lens? Probably, but I think the pricier the lens, the less the effect of the gold lettering. The person who effective pays $150 for a kit lens for the first time might be impressed by the esoteric "ED" in gold letters just behind the narrow ungrippable plastic focus ring, but ultimately the vast majority of the people who pay $12K for a lens, or just $2K for a lens, judges their purchases by the image they produce, not the gold lettering.<br /> </p> <p> </p>

<p>The magnitude of the actual difference that super ED and fluoride elements would make likely increases with aperture. So while a f/5.6 lens may be passable without them, a f/2.8 or f/4 lens would likely need them much more to remain competitive.<br> If it was pure marketing slogan, Nikon could have shouted those slogans with the 200-500 as well, without making the lens physically any different.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don’t get how the 200-500 it’s so reasonably priced compared to Nikons other new lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>This really isn't the first time Nikon has released Nikon branded telephoto zoom lenses that are clearly aimed to be price competitive with Sigma and Tamron. Look at the 70-300 lenses Nikon released from about 2000 to 2006, prior to the current VR version.<br /><br /><br> Making a accessible super-telephoto zoom is also a pretty good marketing move in itself. This lens is position at a point where it is accessible to any semi-serious amateur, and it appears to be quite good enough for respectable professional work. So it probably would entice many semi-serious amateur birders or other wildlife shooters to either move to Nikon, or stay with Nikon.</p>

<p>The three points in favor of 500f/4P are:<br /> 1. It's f/4. <br /> 2. AF indicator still works if you put a 2X teleconverter (with appropriate modification) on it.<br /> 3. It is already fully depreciated. If you take good care of it, you can probably sell it for as much as you paid for it should you decide to shift the funds to a fancier lens in the future.<br> <br /> But functionality wise, I agree 200-500 is overall a superior, as well as cheaper, contender, especially considering the VR and the ability to frame the image with zoom. But if you pay new prices, which would likely be the only option for at some time, expect to lose 30%-40% when you resell it.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hmm, not at this scale. I asked about out of focus high lights because Canon's diffractive optic lenses have a reputation of rendering out of focus highlights very harshly, with sharp edges on the outside and concentric rings on the inside.<br> I don't see it in your images. Maybe it's not an unavoidable result of using diffraction rings, and Nikon's implementation is better.</p>

<p>How does one link an uploaded photo to a post here? When I tried to post the URL, it showed a box with an X in it?</p>

<p>I believe 500f/4P is compatible with the long discontinued TC-14B.</p>

<p>Used super telephotos seem to hold their values well. I suspect if you buy a used 500 f/4P in good condition at something close to market price, you have a good chance of selling it for a similar amount in a few years when you have saved enough for a new AFS lens, if you take good care of it.<br> So the alternatives are not 500 f/4P <em>or</em> a new AFS lens. 500 f/4P can be part of your savings plan for the new AFS lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p><img src="/photo/18109045&size=lg" alt="" />how do I link to one of my own photos in my workspace?</p>

<p>I have to say handholding this lens is no joy.<br> In dim light, D810's autofocus has decidedly more trouble with this lens than with F/2.8 zoom. In fact, in dim light, the D810's AF seem to have more trouble finding the focus with this lens then even with 70-300 VR.<br> With the 70-300 VR, the D810 would sometimes fall into a sort of focus trap where the camera would find something close to the focus, then shift the focus back and forth in a very rapid series of movements as if it couldn't quite decided between two very close focus ranges. If you lock the focus with focus lock button at that moment, you would find the focus is pretty good even if the camera is still hunting.<br> With the 200-500, the camera often simply give up, and flash the focus circle in the view finder. <br> Have used it for a few days, I have to say I think the 200-500 is more of a specialty long telephoto lens with reframing capability, not a travel lens like the 80-400AFS. It does make up for its reduced versatility and increased weight and bulk with an outstanding price, and very good image quality.<br> I think I made the right decision to buy this lens over the 80-400AFS. I do mostly landscapes, only rarely wildlife. I think for me, a lens like 80-400AFS, in addition to being too expensive and overlap too much with the 70-200AFS to justify its cost, would also encourage sloppy photography by virtue of its great zoom range. The size, weight and range of this lens encourages more forethought, as well as save a good sum that can be used for a good tripod.</p> <p> </p>

<p>If you are going to get a 50mm go for the Nikon 50mmf/1.8 AFS. It cost 1/4 as much as Sigma Art lens (I can vouch whether it matches the Sigma lens, but it is good), and in most respects equal or better than Nikon's own f/1.4 AFS, which cost twice as much.<br> I bought both of Nikon's 50mm AFS, compared them, and returned the f/1.4AFS.</p>

<p>Shun, what is your impression of the image quality and out of focus highlights of the 300PF vs the older 300 AFS?</p>

<p>Sorry, I was away on a business trip, which was then extended to include a personal weekend in California and Yosemite. </p> <p>I suspect I know what is happening. I suspect the LV is substantially underexposing the low light image it shows. As a result, the image looks noisy, but aberrations like flares are too dim to see. When the shutter is actually tripped, the camera correctly exposes the image. This makes flare and other aberrations much plainer.</p> <p>At Yosemite, I attempted to photograph the night sky from Glacier point and the valley floor, it is clear LV is essentially worthless in such circumstances because exposure value is so low that almost nothing, including the artificial lights on the valley floor, is visible. But a 6 second exposure actually produce ghosting and flares around artificial lighting.</p> <p> </p>

Using the 24-70 AFS with the D810, I notice a problem when shooting at night at a lite object like a neon sign. When I use full magnification on the live view to focus, the sign appears sharp on the monitor. But when I actually take the picture, the image of the sign appears slightly blurry at the same magnification, and is surrounded by a halo the same color as the sign. I thought it might be chromatic aberration, but that should split the color of the sign and scatter its component colors around the edges, not create a halo the same color as the light. Also, if there were chromatic aberration, why does it not appear on the live view?