sebastianmoran

<p>Lens Rentals testing I find very, very valuable. They test multiple copies, the eliminate bad ones, and they check lenses coming back from rental. And, they share their data. And, they have a page that explains how to do some discriminating tests yourself. A service to the whole photographic community!</p> <p>With their testing, I think I am more comfortable with one of their lenses than just pulling a brand new one from retail stock. </p> <p>That said, getting a "bad" lens seems like a relatively low probability for major manufacturers products. </p>

<p>Agree about the punctuation.<br> I have the Metabones Nikon to NEX. It works perfectly and gives good images. It's a heavy little bugger, so the combination camera-reducer-and lens is pretty big. That and the fact mine is manual focus only.<br> I'll use mine only for special situations.</p>

<p>Your sample image... Is that a crop from the bad lens? A size reduction from the bad lens? </p> <p>Or an image from new good lens?</p>

<p>With this body, I think you'll want an AF lens. 50mm f/1.8 will be great, the 35 f/1.8 AF-G is also great. Those are my picks for a DX kit.</p>

<p>All depends what you are shooting.</p> <p>I use a 28 or 35 as a normal on DX and medium wide on FX. The 50 on DX is my portrait setup. I have the 85 f/1.8, but don't use it. The 127-135 equiv is not a focal length I like, and the 85 is big, even the f/1.8. Your 1.4 is even bigger. </p> <p>To shoot birds in Florida last winter, I took the 200-500 on DX, and left the 300 at home.</p> <p>Have a great trip!</p>

<p>Just to say that I'm quite happy with my MacBook Pro laptop for photography.</p> <p>The 5K iMac is better. And, my screen brightness is a bit off (too bright) without calibration. But, overall, I'm very happy.</p> <p>Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p>After years with Nikon, I started using the A6000 and like it a lot.</p> <p>I use most: <br> - 50mm for portraits<br> - 24mm (=35mm equivalent) for quality and low light<br> - One of the kit zooms for all around convenience.</p> <p>A6000 is a great body. If you have doubts, start here.</p>

<p>Shimon, I am very happy with my D7200 for birds. I'm using the 200-500 f/5.6 lens which I think is terrific.</p> <p>I also have the Sony bodies similar to yours, and I use focus peaking with many different lenses, especially for portraits and scenics. For shooting birds, I greatly prefer AF, a longer lens, and the D7200. </p> <p>Yes, branches in front of the bird can cause problems, especially with wide-area AF. My approach is single spot AF, I put the spot where I want it, and generally avoid problems. D7200 is terrific. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I compared the 35mm Nikon to its APS equivalent (a 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon) and the image quality of the Fujinon was superior.</p> </blockquote> FWIW, the image quality of the Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 on APS is very good as well. For 35mm equiv, I'm using the Sony.

<p>One more comment: You simply cannot consider the 35 f/1.4 without reading <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html">Bjorn Rorslett's comments</a> on this lens.</p>

<p>Stuart, thanks for the two comparative photos. Your daughter, I'll guess, looks like a wonderful young person.</p> <p>And, for the lens, what a difference a stop makes!</p>

<p>First, there are several different Nikkor 28s. The AIS version is remarkable at close distances. I think the others are only OK at any distance (e.g. the 28 f/2.8 AF).</p> <p>Second, the 35 f/1.4 has a following, but I've never gone there. The 35 f/2 is OK, nice at the center wide open, and fine if stopped down.</p> <p>I just don't know what to use for a landscape 28mm on Nikon DSLRs. After Ming Thien's review, I adopted the Coolpix A for my 28mm FOV landscape camera.</p>

<p>Pocket Wizzard are the established high-quality brand. The B&H link above for two pieces is hard to beat.</p> <p>The Yongnuo have worked very, very well for me. All this is changing. The old pocket wizards were much, much more expensive.</p>

<p>If the 50 is "too long" for your style of photography, then the 35 f/1.8 DX lens is hard to beat. Very hard to beat.</p>

<p>p.s. for what it's worth, I like the 75-85mm equivalent for portraits. That means 50mm on an APS body. For other styles, there might well be other preferences.</p> <p>When I had a little baby, the 105 equiv was the right lens. But for adults, for me, it's 75-85 equiv.</p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8G for the 7100 (APS) body. A great lens, very nice bokeh. Yes, a 50 f/1.4 would be better as a max-bokeh portrait lens on this camera, but the 1.8 is really good. This is a nice rig; I use it all the time and greatly prefer it over the much larger FX+85 rig.</p> <p>The 85 f/1.8 for a full-frame body. </p>

<p>Yes, I'll bet your exposure is changing more than the light.</p> <p>For shoots with lots of images, I don't think you can beat Lightroom. </p>

<p>I do a pretty rigorous selection and culling in Lightroom. P for "Pick", X for "Delete"</p> <p>First pick the winners and the losers. Mark X for the losers. With digital, I shoot a lot of in-camera dupes. Pick the best of each series, and usually also keep the next best, mark X on the others. </p> <p>Second round: Turn on Library Filters, picks and unmarked, so the X'd photos disappear. Then I post-process the picks. At this point I'll give up on a few more. Review the whole set of picks, add or subtract to get the set I want. When I'm reasonably comfortable with the set, then I let Lightroom delete and remove from catalog all the X'd images. </p> <p>Finally, export jpegs for the selected shots, write changes to .xmp sidecar files, and I'm done.</p>

<p>And, Mark, if you like your 5n, as I did, then it's time to go for an A6000 or 6300.</p>

<p>I do mix things. APS for longer reach, along with, at times, a full-35mm-sized sensor body. Mirrorless (Sony APS) for portraits and general use. DSLR with longer lenses for birds. Nikon Coolpix A for a handy 28mm equivalent rig. Some legacy lenses on the Sony. </p> <p>My take: Pick your primary piece of gear, use it well. Add other things, including cross platform, where it fills a need.</p>

<p>How big a file to keep depends on the possible use. You start with big files, so you obviously have some uses for these. I would keep jpg's at 80+ quality and discard the raws and tiffs.</p> <p>The biggest payoff for me is rigorous culling, rather than the choice of how to store the selected images. That is, deleting completely all the additional shots, the near duplicates, the ones that weren't quite as good. So tempting to save some of these, but realistically I'll never go back to these almost good shots.</p>

<p>Paul, if f/4 works for you, these are great lenses. When I had the 300 f/2.8 and used it for birds, I wound up at f/4 most of the time anyway, so it was no advantage for me. In lower light, conclusion might be different.</p>

<p>FWIW, all the 300 f/4 lenses are great. I've used the first 300 f/4 ED-IF with 82mm front ring. And the AFS version. I also tried the 300 f/2.8 on a rental one trip. I prefer the f/4 for a size and weight. Image quality on all of these is really excellent.</p> <p>I shoot birds with DX and the 300 on a monopod.</p> <p>Also to consider is the 200-500 f/5.6 if you can get by with f/5.6</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the detailed info. I hadn't known about that extra motor.</p>

<p>I have the Sony A6000 and several lenses. </p> <p>The smallest kit lens is not a pro lens but should be fine for casual photos. Great photos on a NZ tourist trip with that lens.</p> <p>If not that, then try one of the small primes. I like the 24mm f/2.8 Sony/Zeiss, but it's not call.</p>