doug andrews

<p>I have a D7100 and got the 24-85mm for the very reason Rodeo Joe mentions, my next camera will be FX. For me it works quite well with my Tokina 12-24mm.</p>

<p>I have the Rokinon (same manufacturer as Samyang) 14mm f2.8 in Nikon mount. I use it for wide field astrophotography. Very sharp. The color rendition is ever so slightly warm (yellow). Only noticed it when I compared the same shots taken with my Tokina 12-24 lens. The manual focus throw is nicely damped but very long. Reviews seem to indicate there are issues with sample variability. Typical issues I read were softness in corners or one half of the frame was soft while the other was sharp. So definitely do some lens testing if you obtain one.</p>

<p>I was in the same boat as you and upgraded to LR6 primarily because I'm thinking Adobe may only offer the Creative Cloud monthly subscription version at some point in the near future. That model seems to be gaining favor. I'm just an enthusiast photographer and shoot just for me. I use Lighroom only 2-3 times/month. So the one time upgrade price has already paid for itself in the savings over the monthly subscription. Adobe's webpage will tell you all the features that LR6 & LRCC has over LR5. To me getting a built in image stitching (Photo Merge) and HDR capability are nice new features. New lens and camera RAW convertor profiles are being added as new lenses and bodies come out. Not sure if LR5 will take them. Probably will but require a little effort on your part to find and install. LR6 also has a facial recognition feature, but I don't use it as I shoot nature.</p>

<p>I would rank B+W and Heliopan as equal with Hoya coming in second. I still have a Nikon 81A filter that I used when I shot film and it is excellent quality and I would put it right up there with B+W and Heliopan.</p>

<p>Haven't seen any software editing technique that eliminates glare and reflections better than just using a polarizer.</p>

<p>Sunrise - Sprague Lake, Bear Lake, Dream Lake, Lilly Lake, Moraine Park<br /> Sunset - Bear Lake, Rock Cut<br /> Wildlife - For elk just look for the crowds typically in Moraine Park, Moose typically on the west side of the park along the Colorado river, not sure about eagles and owls<br /> Waterfalls - Albert Falls, Chasm Falls<br /> Crowds will be present to watch the elk rut, likely a little early for the Aspens.</p>

<p>The one time I visited the area was the end of July/first of August. Plenty of wildflowers around and Mt. Rainier always has snow.</p>

<p>I use a Kirk BH-3 ballhead as my compact travel/hiking ballhead and it holds my 80-200mm f 2.8 lens just fine.</p>

<p>I use this lens with a D7100 in conjunction with a 12-24mm lens. I shoot primarily nature and landscapes. In other words often with a tripod and stopped down to at least f6.7 or more. I find this lens to be quite good and sharp.</p>

<p>There is some merit to what David has suggested. I live in Colorado and during the summer the best nature scenes are of the wildflowers meadows and basins high up in the mountains. There are only a few roads that get you there that don't require high clearance and/or 4WD. And even then, you still may need to do a bit of day hiking. Autumn can be magical in Colorado. Also, Colorado isn't really known for Spanish missions and churches. Colorado was on the fringes of the Spanish held lands and was primarily country that was passed through while going from Santa Fe to California.</p>

<p>Pretty sure that area will be well past peak by mid-October. Last week of September to first week of October is typical peak fall color time here in Colorado depending on where you go in the state. This year, colors appear to be running a little earlier that typical.</p>

<p>PSE 12 is the current version now.<br /> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html</p>

<p>I have a D7100 and the 24-85mm VR lens. I assume you are referring to the current version of this lens. The G lens that is f3.5-4.5. I use it in conjunction with a Tokina 12-24mm lens. I have no concerns with sharpness at all as the DX format crops out the corners where softness will show soonest.</p>

<p>1) N80 to D200<br>

2) The immediacy of digital in general and a histogram specifically<br>

3) Less weight</p>

<p>Still using my D200. As a landscape photographer I'm primarily using it at ISO 100 and its great. Occasionally I try my hand at wildlife photography which often requires an ISO of 400 or higher. This is when the D200 IQ really starts to suffer. Like so many others, I'm looking forward to a D400.</p>

<p>Stefan - As I said, I have no rationale for the no gaps/no overlap approach. Its just a personal quirk of mine. Yeah dumb I know but that' just me. I'm primarily a landscape shooter. So I basically never shoot on the fly. Changing lens is never an issue with me. A max aperture of f2.8 is nice but I'm always stopped down to F8 or f11 so fast glass isn't a must. Thus my comment about not needing a one lens solution. I don't have a particular focal length that I favor. I like shooting everything from ultra wide to short telephoto. When I was using the 12-24mm and my old 28-105mm, I frequently wanted those missing 4mm. Yes, I zoomed with my feet, but sometimes bodies of water and/or cliffs make that impossible. Yes, weight is a concern as I'm frequently hiking to locations in the field to shoot. So I only carry my 80-200mm lens if I plan on doing some wildlife photography. Like you, I've only heard the FX versus DX argument the other way around, thus my primary question. The consensus seems to be it should not be a concern.</p>

<p>While I appreciate all the lens suggestions, that is not the question I asked. I'm curious as to whether getting an FX lens to fill that mid range focal length gap would be wise considering I currently use a D200, will most likely be upgrading with another DX body, and wish to continuing using my 12-24mm DX lens to cover the wide angle shots?? I'm not looking for a one lens solution, but something to accompany my 12-24mm lens. As I mentioned I really want to avoid focal length overlap and gaps at the wide end. I have no rational reason for this, its just a personal quirk. Currently that leaves me with looking at only FX lenses to go from 24mm to 80mm. Given that, is mixing DX and FX lenses in a lineup an unwise way to go forward or should I sell off every lens I have and rebuild my lineup with all DX??</p>

<p>I recently posted a question about upgrading my D200 to an FX body. Given my particular circumstances, the consensus was to stick with a DX body which I'm happy to do. However there is a focal length range that I really would also like to upgrade. I am a landscape shooter 95% of the time. For the UWA end I have the Tokina 12-24mm lens and for longer reach I have the Nikkor 80-200mm , both of which I'm content to keep. Its the range from 24-80mm that needs upgrading. For the longest time I was using an old Sigma 28-105mm lens that I permanently borrowed from my wife's setup when she went to a digital P&S camera. It was never as good an overall performer as my other lenses and that small gap from 24mm to 28mm and the big overlap from 80-105mm always bothered me. Most if not all mid range DX zoom lenses seem to start at 16 or 17mm. But I already have the 16-24mm range covered with the Tokina lens. Ideally what I want is a zoom lens in the 24mm-80mm range. There are quite a few FX zoom lenses that would fit that range. Am I missing some long term wisdom in going forward with the new FX Nikkor 24-85mm VR AF-S lens for example considering that when I upgrade my DSLR, it'll almost certainly be another DX body (if/when the D400 ever appears)??</p>

<p>Mike I'm in a similar situation as you. I'm a landscape shooter with a six year old D200 and am considering making the move to FX. I only have one DX lens (Tokina 12-24mm) and am still using my old FX lenses I acquired when I was a film shooter. Being tight on funding, I just can't swing a new FX body and upgrading my lenses as well. I'm greatly tempted by the D600 but am also curious to see if Nikon will bring out a D400. If I've held on this long with the D200, I guess I can wait a little longer to see what comes out. But the upgrade bug is really starting to bite down on me.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great responses so far. I really want to avoid having to purchase both a new DSLR and new UWA lens to go with it. Seems I should reconsider sticking with DX format. </p>

<p>Let me provide some background info before I ask my question. I'm a landscape photographer. When I was shooting with my N80 my wide angle lens was the Nikkor 18-35mm. When I upgraded to the D200, I purchased the Tokina 12-24mm lens to replace the 18-35mm. The 12-24mm lens is the only DX lens I own. My D200 is pretty dated technology as far as DSLRs go and I'm considering replacing it with the D600. I still own the 18-35mm lens; however, there is one particular glaring issue with it that will probably be magnified with the D600. The corners of the 18-35mm lens are quite soft when used at 18mm. The Tokina 12-24mm is better in the corners at the wide end than the 18-35mm. Given this (or perhaps others reasons I'm missing) do you think it would be better to use the DX mode on the D600 when I want to shoot a scene that requires a wide angle of view and use the 12-24mm lens, or remain in FX mode and go back to using the 18-35mm lens. I haven't kept up with all the new lenses that have been released since I got my D200 (2006) so perhaps there is another lens choice available instead of these two wide angle lenses I currently have.</p>

<p>The in-camera meter on the 35mm (Nikon N80) and an external for the Fuji.</p>

<p>Yes, I have been using the same meter since I obtained the Fuji. Yes just basing it on my own eye when viewed with a light table.</p>

<p>When I shot 35 mm film, it was mostly Velvia. Eventually I upgraded to medium format when I acquired a Fuji GW670III. However, it seems like the exposure latitude of 120 Velvia seems more forgiving than 35mm Velvia. I used to always bracket my 35mm Velvia shots by a 1/2 stop on either side and continue to do this with the 120 version. However, the 1/2-stop bracketed results with the 120 version don't show the difference in exposure like they did with the 35mm version. The difference in exposure seems more like 1/3 or 1/4 stop. Its possible that my memory is faulty as its been 6 years since I shot any 35mm Velvia. Still, could Velvia's exposure latitude vary depending on format?? I mean its all the same emulsion so I'm thinking its got to be the cameras instead. But I can bracket by a full stop on either side with my Fuji MF camera and see the difference in exposure that I remember seeing with the 35mm camera (Nikon N80) with only a 1/2-stop bracket. Your thoughts would be appreciated.</p>

<p>As late in May as possible. Unless you don't mind the possibility of a wet cold snowy storm rolling through the area. Also in late May the elk and bison calves will have dropped giving the bears (and wolves and coyotes) so prime pickings.</p>