raczoliver

Matthew, the "new" 24-120 f/4 VR zoom lens is also an outie, although you really have to set it to 120 mm to see the blades at all. I remember some of the kit zooms to also be outies. I wonder if there's anything more than the toss of a coin at play during the design process.

<p>Well, at least I'm not the only one that cares:-)</p> <p>http://www.jcolwell.ca/photography/x-arc/BellyButtonSurvey.pdf</p>

<p>Sorry, I may not have been clear enough. By "aperture" I meant the opening itself. Here is a picture I just took to illustrate my question. The lens on the left is the 105 DC lens with the blades going <em>under</em> the adjacent one, and the lens on the right is the 135 DC with the blades going <em>over</em> the adjacent one.</p><div></div>

<p>I noticed that the diaphragm blades of some lenses cross in front of the aperture, meaning you can see the pointy end of the blades when looking through the front element, while others cross behind, so the tail of each blade is covered by the adjacent one as the aperture is closed.</p> <p>Are there any benefits or drawbacks to either design compared to the other one? Why does Nikon make some lenses this way, others that way, and why are two otherwise so similar lenses like the 105 DC and 135 DC different in this? Any significance?</p>

<p>As I am typing this, one of the ads on the right of my screen is from 42nd Street Photo advertising the D810 for $2679. I also looked at it, and the reviews seem shady.</p>

<p>I may be insensible, but I don't think I'd have a problem telling them nicely that I don't feel like taking the DSLR out for that shot, because I don't find it interesing enough. I don't think anyone should be offended by this answer. If they really want that shot, maybe this will even inspire them to pick up a "big" camera themselves next time.</p>

<p>I used to just take the picture, but recently I started politely saying things like "I don't find that too inspiring", or "yeah, it's nice, but the lighting seems a little bland now, so I'll skip it" or something like that. When I am with someone else who is into photography as well, I may also bring to their attention something I find nice or interesting, but because I get the feeling you describe quite often myself, I don't get offended at all if the other photographer is not inspired by my idea, or finds the lighting bland (even though it's obviously awesome). I also sometimes pay attention to what the other photographers are doing, and very often I don't see a picture at all wherever their camera is pointing. At other times they manage to give me some great ideas, but then I feel a little like a copy-cat.</p>

<p>I don't know much about renting gear, but that sounds like an odd way to charge. If that's really how you want to do it, there are software available, some of them free, which will show you the shutter actuation count. You can take a note of how much it was showing before he started using the camera, and check again when you get it back.</p>

<p>24 mp Df? Did I miss an announcement?</p> <p>The viewfinder is the only reason I still find the Df somewhat attractive. I wonder how the D810 and D750 compare.</p>

<p>It appears you were using rather slow shutter speeds, like 1/60 sec with the lens set at 85mm for the shot with the cars at the intersection. Were you using a tripod, or were you hand-holding these shots? If you used a tripod, did you use a timer or remote? Did you use mirror lock-up? At those shutter speed settings, I would say it's most likely camera motion you see. For that particular shot, you also used an aperture of f/13 for whatever reason, which in my opinion was have been unnecessary. You could have used f/8 or so in combination with a somewhat faster shutter speed.</p>

<p>Honestly, I did not consider the 80-200 f/2.8, simply because of its size and weight. I think if I buy a zoom lens in this range, it's going to be the 70-200 f/4, because that would be something I could use for travel photogrpahy as well. Now that I think of it, that may also be a viable option in the studio as well.</p> <p>It seems like the 105 DC is the most suitable for my purpose, but it just feels like a bit of a waste to not get something more versatile, since I already have the 135 DC, which is pretty much identical apart from the small difference in focal length.</p>

<p>I had the 105 f/2.5 AIS in mind, but I'm a little hesitant to do manual focus for portraits, although in this case I would not be using large apertures. I do have a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 lens that I use for landscapes mostly, but when I take pictures of people with that lens, focus is a hit or miss, and I know it's not the lense's fault, but rather my inability to focus it precisely on the D700, so I would probably also have to get a custom focusing screen if I go that route.</p>

<p>Check custom function a9. You may have turned it off by accident. By the way, I must say that for me at least, the AF assist light is close to the top on the list of useless camera functions. Probably the first thing I do when I get a new camera is turn it off, so it doesn't bother the people I photograph.</p>

<p>I recently set up a studio at home and started shooting portraits. I do mostly head shots and head and shoulder type portraits, and find myself wanting something in the 105mm range. I currently do have a 85mm f/1.8G and a 135mm f/2 DC and love both, but I feel that the 105 would get me just at the right distance from the subject. I can't decide between the 105 DC lens and the 105 Micro-Nikkor.</p> <p>I would use this lens for studio portraits, and will be using it mostly between f/5.6-11. In this case I care for the DC feature just as little as the macro. I mostly read that the Micro-Nikkor is ever so slightly sharper than the DC, and since I already have the 135 DC lens, I would be leaning towards the Micro-Nikkor, but I do have a couple of concerns:</p> <p>I have used a macro lens for portraits before, and it didn't work for me, because there was too much hunting. However, that was a much cheaper lens, an old version of the Sigma 105 macro, but I am still concerned that macro lenses in general do that. Has anyone used this lens for portraits? I'd also like to hear more comments on their sharpness. Some say they are the same, most say the Micro-Nikkor is a little better, and I also read one or two comments that said the DC was nicer. I love the 135 DC, so I know I can't really go wrong with its little brother, but then the Micro-Nikkor is a much newer design, and I'm pretty sure it's also a stellar performer. So I guess it mostly comes down to its focus accuracy and amount of hunting at portrait shooting distances.</p> <p>Right now I am using a D700, but I would also like to hear thoughts on using them on a higher resolution camera.</p> <p>Any comments are welcome. Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure this thing is capable of much better autoficus and image quality than the D700, but I am very reluctant to "upgrade" to a more consumerish (is that a word?) body with no dedicated AF-on button among other things. For now I will just hold on to my good not too old D700. It is good to see that they are packing more and more features into the affordable bodies, but I also get the feeling that the ergonomics are being downgraded compared to previous generations of cameras at similar price points.</p> <p>I suppose the D750 has a 100% viewfinder, is that correct?</p>

The 24-120 performs very nicely on my D700. When I bought mine, the sigma was not yet around, but I do tend to use the long end quite a lot. My main problems with the 24-120 are the heavy distortion at pretty much all focal lengths (least noticeable around 35mm, but still there), vignetting, and rather unpleasant bokeh at large apertures. I mostly use this lens at apertures around f/5.6-8, and try to avoid a shallow depth of field. I almost always correct the barrel distortion on the short end in post, while I tend to leave the pincushion distortion as it is. I have no problems at all with its sharpness on the D700. Great for general travel and landscapes, at least that is what I use mine for. I can't comment on the sigma, but I think on the D700 the choice comes down to whether the price difference is worth the extra reach for you. I later bought a 135mm f/2 DC lens, so the long end of the 24-120 gets used less now, and sometimes I wish I had the 24-85 instead for its smaller size and lighter weight.

Did your camera automatically identify it as a DX lens? Although you can easily set it to FX manually, that does sound like a malfunction.