robert_bouknight1

For me, primes like this are preferable to 70-200 zooms, since I am shooting mostly individuals and not constrained by event limitations. Price seems OK/fair if it is really good. Only about 10x as much as the first 105 I bought in 1978ish, LOL. I will rent one at some point and compare to my 105/1.4g that seems very good. I probably prefer the 105 focal length.

It would be interesting to compare a maximum resolution file from a Zf to a 45MP file, assuming both cameras bolted to rigid tripods and something like a cathedral for a subject. But not really practical for my style of almost always handheld photography while on the go. In my own comparisons of handheld results, I can't tell much difference between 24 and 45 MP when viewing on a monitor, but I keep on wasting file storage space with 45MP anyway, always grabbing the 45MP camera first unless I know I will be shooting in very low light. I was "taught" to always capture as much image quality as possible, and just can't let go of that concept. For some, the combination of a better high ISO sensor and sensor shift higher res where applicable might be attractive.

One feature that might be fun is the face detect/zoom for manual focus. I still have several manual focus lenses that are very nice for portraits. When using those lenses on a Z, I have the back focus button set to zoom 100% to the focus point. Still a little clunky but works. A bit more automation of the process would be nice. But, still not a compelling reason to buy the Zf. I will see if the brick/mortar store 30 min away gets one and check it out. I was interested in the Df until I looked at it "in person". While the sensor system was fine (I used a D4 a while), the Df did not truly capture the panache of the old film cameras, IMO.

Doubt I will buy, but I do like the olive green version. Other than "nice" appearance, I don't see any benefits to outweigh a different user interface from what I am using. Grip: I think the D810 was about right. For my average to ML hands, D850 and Z9 seem a little deep for me, but are OK. From a very retro standpoint, the vertical grip on an F/F36 is nice IMO, one can keep a very secure hold with the gap. All of this makes me want to go shoot a roll in an F! And, I kept an MD-11 on my FM back in the day. It killed a lot of S76 batteries for me until I put tape over the meter switch contacts. The later MD-12 had a timed meter shutoff.

With the fairly intelligent auto AF in the Z8, one could be stealthy and not even raise the camera up, and get a high percentage of in focus photos - if using a fairly wide angle composition that you have a good feel for. Of course, we had "auto focus" back in the manual focus days by setting a typical focus distance on the lens and keeping it ready that way. Worked pretty well for shorter focal lengths.

Thanks Rob! I downloaded it and it does appear to have Portrait and Landscape to add to the D3 series.

Thanks, the D3x and D3s have standard, neutral, vivid, and monochrome. I did not have the camera(s) in hand when I wrote the post and forgot that they did have vivid. If the portrait mode is basically neutral with a few increases of sliders, or standard turned "down" a bit, I have done that. But it would be nice to have the "official" portrait starting point to work with. The D2x modes that were available on the Nikon USA website do not appear to be available any more, either.

I can't seem to find them for downloading on the net, the link on the Nikon website goes nowhere now. I shoot raw and can apply the settings in post, but it would be nice to be able to set the camera for quick JPGs. Sometimes I jack around standard setting to suit or, I use D2X Mode I that I have, or D2X Mode III. Downloaded those a while back. I have those saved in my PC and can send if anyone needs them. Meanwhile, if anyone could send portrait picture control file(s) that work in the D3x to me, I would appreciate it.

Yes! if the deal is for real, the lens is excellent, and the camera, while it does not have the latest stuff, will produce images 99+% as good as a new Z9. I just got a deal (not as good as your proposed deal) on a Z9, so I have both for now. I can tell that the Z9 has a more responsive AF system, but the Z7 is good enough for portraits, landscapes, and so on. The eye focus works well for people. I probably would not pick up my Z7 for sports, but everything else is fine, IMO.

The focus peaking is fast and accurate enough, I think. The problem is that the focus plane just moves too much per degree of turn of the manual focus system in the 105DC. Handheld, I can't even focus the lens accurately enough on a static subject with the finder zoomed to 100%. Seems like many AF lens manual focus systems are that way. I do wish I could buy an "FTZ-D" screw drive adaptor, but it's highly unlikely to happen. Lenses I have and would like to use (with AF) regularly on a Z are down to the 105DC and 180/2.8AF, because of the way they render people. Second tier would be an old 80-200/2.8 and 300/2.8AFD. The 80-200/2.8 AFD I have would be considered a bit soft by modern standards but has nice saturation and contrast for people photos. My antique 300/2.8 AFD will still have AF when the AFS system dies in my newer 300. Realistically, the Z (and 1.8G F mount) wides are better than the old screw drive wides, so the old wides are not in my list of lenses I would like to be able to use with AF on a Z. So, I will keep a couple of operational F DSLRs for my screw drive relics.

Mike, I have concluded that the 105DC that has screw drive AF is not really usable on the Z for portraiture, unfortunately. The manual focusing gearing is too "fast" for the precision needed with both the subject and photog moving around a little, at least for my skills. I get better results using "real" manual focus 105's

I was a little surprised at what I saw: The 105/1.4E had more diffuse far background bokeh at the same aperture as the 105DC. I thought it would be about the same for the same length lens at the same f/stop. This is a nice surprise for the 105/1.4. Not a surprise is that the 1.4 is sharper, but not dramatically in a real hand held world. The 105/1.4 triggered a brighter exposure than the 105DC across multiple frames. I had the camera set to manual with auto ISO enabled. ISO was highest for the 1.4, then the DC, then DC with DC enabled, consistently. Not a large variation, but it is there. Enabling the DC setting to match aperture setting did soften the distant bokeh somewhat, but it softened the focus plane, also. Softened In a pleasant way, but more than I would have expected. I did know that setting the DC control higher than the aperture in use would soften the image. Homework assignment to self: Experiment with 105DC more, with DC feature set a little less than stop in use. Verify AF tune and consistency. For now, the 105/1.4 on a Z will continue to be my go to setup for people photos, but the 105DC on the D850 is an interesting alternate for a different look.

I have had a 105/2DC for around 20 years since when I still used film. The lens has delivered some very nice images, for sure, and some frustration. Looking at 100% for the exact focus on an eye cornea can be frustrating for 105/2DC images, but I still preferred it to the 105/2.8G Micro and 70-200 zoom. Since moving generally to Z cameras, I have not used the 105DC much. My AF hit ratio seems much higher using a 105/1.4E on a Z body. But maybe the 1.4E is too good sometimes... I did a shoot recently where "I tried too hard." Results from that outing were too contrasty/unpleasant, I was in direct sunlight for many of the photos. I have another session coming up and want to improve preparation for better results. A while back I picked up a cheap high mileage D850 I haven't used much. Yesterday, I tried out the 105s on the D850, thinking that the 850 AF system might improve the 105DC AF repeatability. I think it does, but I need to verify AF fine tune with the DC and experiment more with the DC feature. I have not used the DC system often, thinking that it wasn't really necessary. But it would be nice to be able increase the depth of field for a person's face while maintaining a soft background, so I dialed in 2.8 on the ring to match the shooting stop. Images below are typical for the tests yesterday.

I looked on Amazon just now. At the $'s invested in that lens, I think I would want to be able to have it repaired if necessary in the next 10 (or more) years, so I understand your concern. Probably try to call Nikon to check the serial number. A lot of US nikon gear has US in the serial number. Otherwise, It might be worth the additional $800 for a new warranted lens. Does Nikon still have the 5 year lens warranty? I have purchased a few refurb items, seems like there was a short warranty associated with those items and some docs in the box, but I can't remember.

Thanks for this thread, I fool around with various older DSLRs, and always like starting a new "project" at baseline.

Late jumping in...When I read the OP I thought of recommending using a 55/3.5 MF for this project, I see that others are on the same page. I use one of my copies frequently for copying building plans (cheap scanner). There is some internet noise that the first version with compensating aperture might be slightly better at close ranges than later versions, while the later versions might be better at distance. I have example(s) of both, I think. Someday, I plan to test this rumour, wonder if 45MP will be enough resolution to tell. For a while they were too cheap on Ebay for me to pass up, but they seem to have appreciated a little. Still a bargain, IMO.

I was thinking about the 100-400 or 180-600 Z lenses. I usually buy used, but did buy the 70-300 AFP new. After evaluating it, I definitely thought it was worth whatever I paid a few years ago. I use it regularly on a FTZ & Z6.

I have not done an exhaustive side by side test, but I did not think I would be happy using my friend's AFS, and I am perfectly happy using my AF-P at least on 24MP. Sure, my 300/2.8 is probably better, and my 70-200/4 AFS might be a little better but is heavier and does not go to 300. Since getting the AF-P, my 70-200/4 has not gotten a lot of use. The new Z mount options are interesting, though.

I don't know much about astro photography to offer any advice, but your photo project does sound very interesting. I hope you are able to find a good solution. Keep us posted. In general, using AF Nikon lenses on the Z should result in at least some decent lens correction applied by Nikon software. Using 3rd party lens corrections in, for example, Lightroom may not have as effective corrections, but this is another area that I don't have much experience with.

I think I have an IV-a - somewhere. I can't remember about the LED light, will try to find my camera tonight and check the operation. Have not seen it since I moved 3 years ago.

I tried to buy a 24-200 for $419.95. The cost was something like $647 when added to the cart, not $419,, and then the listing was gone while I was on the phone with Nikon. I think that price was a typo on their website.

I did manage to get a reasonable number of in focus images of middle school kids playing soccer with the 80-400AF-D mounted on D1H and D2H bodies back in the 00's. Maybe the higher power AF motor in the big bodies helped. But I don't miss that lens. If size/weight is an issue, the AF-P 70-300 mentioned earlier is a great option. It is much better than my friends earlier AF-S 70-700. Configure a Fn button on the D750 for DX crop to get a "built in 1.5x teleconverter"

OK, so I like the option to get much of the Z9 in a smaller form factor. But I am a little disappointed that stills image quality probably is not significantly better than my D850 (2017) or Z7 (2018). Yes, a little better IQ at higher ISO's I expect and AF will be better for fast moving objects. But I am not shooting sports any more so I don't need a Z8 or Z9. Will be interesting to see what happens to the Z7II line. I would for sure find a bit more money for a Z8 vs new Z7II. Just checked the Nikon USA website, the Z7II price has dropped to $2599.95. Makes sense.

I had a D810, and found it to be a well rounded performer. I used it regularly for indoor sports (basketball) at with good results at ISO's in the 3200 range. For a trip that I would have to carry the camera gear many hours per day, I bought a Z6 and assembled a system significantly lighter than an F mount equivalent. On the trip, I found that the AF accuracy for static and slow moving objects seemed better than the D810, and the Z6 seemed better at ISO's in the 6400-8000 range which was necessary in dark cathedrals. The in body stabilization helped, also. The improved high ISO results are not dramatically better than what I could have gotten from the D810, IMO, though. So, the Z6 replaced the D810 as my "daily" camera. I sold the D810 since I also had a D3s that I could use for sports. Since that trip in 2019, I have added a Z7 and an inexpensive high mileage D850 to the equipment shelf. Most of the time I grab the Z7 as first choice, though the 45mp files are a bit of a mixed blessing. I use the D850 for sports (not shooting much these days) and for a few screw drive lenses I still have. The OP indicated that the D810 lacked in tracking? I have pretty good luck/results with Nikon bodies from the D700 on including the D810 using AFC-D9. I do think the D3s and D810 were a little better than the D700 in acquisition response. The D850 does seem to have a better AF system, and probably a bit better high ISO, so maybe the D850 would be a good choice for the OP as others have mentioned.

I think you have already talked yourself into the 24-120S. Not much bigger/heavier than the 24-200, and a higher max reproduction ratio (.39x). For me, not that much difference in 120 vs 200mm. Usually if I need 200mm I need more than 200mm. Of course, you could add the 105 Micro to your 24-70 and have a better bug setup.