roland_vink

<p>Hi, I'm responsible for the information at <a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.html</a> <br> I don't get information from Nikon, the serial numbers are only what I have been able to piece together from details sent to me by various photographers, or used cameras I see on ebay. As such it is very likely to be incomplete, especially for new models. Most of my information is heavily biased towards the USA, UK/Europe and Japanese markets, very little from other regions such as Asia, South America etc. So the fact a D7200 turns up with a 8xxxxxx serial number that is not on my list is hardly surprising, it may come from a region I have not come across yet. If there is an original warranty sheet or box which tells me which region the camera belongs to, I will be happy to add it to my list.</p> <p>I also add, that while researching the camera serial numbers, I have come across a few grey market cameras where the serial number label on the base appears to have been replaced with a fake number. I have no reason why, it's grey market so not covered by Nikon warranties anyway. The camera itself is not fake, they all come from the same factory, it's only who sells and supports the camera that is different.</p>

<p>I have also noticed that the screen brightness of the D600 varies, I always thought the camera was detecting the ambient light and adjusting the screen brightness to suit. It doesn't always get it right and it sometimes appears too dim. I simply turn playback off and on again while holding the camera in bright light, it usually forces the playback to be brighter.</p>

<p>If you want to photograph very small subjects, there is an advantage to using DX.</p> <p>For example, if you are using the 105/2.8 micro at 1:1, the DX camera will allow you to frame a subject 16x24mm, while the FX will only frame 24x36mm. The magnification is the same, the the DX is cropping more tightly, which is useful for very small bugs and flowers etc.</p> <p>If you only want to frame 24x36mm with the DX camera, it means you have to back off a bit which gives you more working distance compared to framing the same subject with FX. Often having a little more working distance is useful, especially if you work from a tripod.</p> <p>If you intend to do more general closeups in the region of 1:4 - 1:2, then either format is fine. For the same framing, the FX will give the appearance of a shallower DOF/more blurred backgrounds, while DX will give the appearance of greater DOF/less blurred background (about one stop difference between the two). Which is better is a matter of preference.</p>

<blockquote> <p>it is easy to get swirly bokeh using this lens which is perhaps to be expected but I am a little disappointed in that respect. [...] I suppose stopping down should refuce the swirly bokeh, however I have not yet tested what would the best aperture to avoid it but still get some background blur.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not surprised the 105/1.4 has significant mechanical vignetting (which is the cause of swirly bokeh and "cats-eye" highlights towards the corners), this is common with high speed lenses. A lens will need oversize front and rear elements to reduce this effect, but the 105/1.4 is big enough already.<br> Stopping down will reduce this effect. Usually a lens needs to be closed down at least 2-3 stops before the aperture blades completely eliminate mechanical vignetting, and are the only thing affecting the entrance pupil. However closing down one stop already eliminates the worst effects - cats-eye highlights don't start to appear until further from the image center and illumination is more even across the frame. I imagine shooting 105mm near f/2 will have a good balance between reducing swirly bokeh and maintaining background blur.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you go with 2.8 or slower you'd might as well be using a zoom<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>There are good reasons for using slow primes. They are usually much smaller than equivalent zooms, there are plenty of occasions when a small, lightweight, unobtrusive (and cheap) lens might be preferable. Slow primes usually have less barrel distortion than zooms. They often have better contrast and resistance to flare (although newer zooms with modern coatings are can also be very good in this regard). And then there is also whether you prefer using zooms or primes - primes are less flexible so they might make you work harder to get the picture, which may give better results.<br> <br> </p>

<p>Please ignore FX/DX "cropping factors" as they are confusing the question. First consider the focal length:</p> <p>Putting a 1.4x TC on the AFS 70-200/4 VR gives you a 100-280/5.6 lens. You may as well use the AFS 70-300 VR instead. This has a little more more zoom range at both ends, slightly faster aperture at the shorter focal lengths, and probably as good optical quality (although the 70-200/4 is better without a TC)</p> <p>If you need to zoom in a bit more, you have two options: either keep the lens you have and crop a bit (assuming the cropped image stands up to scrutiny); or buy a longer lens. There are a few longer lenses which reasonably "affordable":</p> <ul> <li>Nikon AFS 80-400 VR - this is the most expensive of the bunch but has the most versatile zoom range.</li> <li>Nikon AFS 200-500 VR - this will give you significantly more reach than your 70-200/4, it's relatively affordable, but it's quite bulky. You have to consider if you can adequately support this lens while shooting, and if it's portable enough for you to actually use it (no point if it stays at home because it's too big)</li> <li>Nikon AFS 300/4 PF VR - very compact, good optically, gives you a reasonably fast 300mm lens, and with a 1.4x TC a good 420/5.6 lens.</li> <li>Also consider the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms. They have similar issues as the Nikon 200-500, with a bit more zoom range in exchange for a slower aperture at the long end.</li> </ul> <p>Although telephoto zooms can be useful, if you end up using them mostly at the long end you are probably better off with a prime such as the 300/4 which are generally more compact, cheaper, and better optically.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I had an AIS 28/2.8 with a spot like the one highlighted above. It was inside the rear element and looked like a light oil spot. Like yours it was invisible when looking directly through the lens, but from certain angles it would catch the light. I suspect this lens may be slightly prone to this problem from use or even during assembly. I don't recall it ever showed up or affected any pictures. It's one of those cosmetic things you prefer not to be there but doesn't really make much practical difference.</p>

<p>A lot of lenses have a slightly asymmetric opening as shown here, especially at the smallest aperture which is where variations in the aperture blades are most apparent. Open up one or two stops and the problem usually goes away.</p>

<p>Try Dave Iliot at http://www.aztechservices.com/ in Dorset, he should be able to help.</p>

<blockquote> <p>She has used my Nikon 18-135mm in the past, but I would like to get her something a little faster at the long end with very good image quality. She has a Nikon D90 and is currently using my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 to supplement her 50mm f1.8. She mostly shoots mtn bike racing, but also likes shooting friends and family, along with some travel photography. </p> </blockquote> <p>It would be useful to know what focal lengths she mostly uses. For mtn bike racing I guess a short telephoto would be useful, unless you can get really close to the action. I suspect many of the options suggested may not be long enough, but I could be wrong - I don't shoot mtn bike racing.<br> <br> I don't buy the argument that 24-xx zooms aren't wide enough on DX cameras, that's equivalent of about 35-xx on FX. In the 80's there were plenty of zooms which started at 35mm, and they worked fine for general photography. In that case, I think the 24-120/4 might be a good choice for this purpose. You can go from slightly wide, standard and through the short telephoto range in one lens, which is a very useful range. It's only when you are shooting in restricted spaces, or big landscapes, that something wider is useful. If something wider is also needed, it could be supplemented with a wide zoom like the 12-24/4, or the 16-80 as a good all-rounder.</p>

<p>The geometric mid-point between 14mm and 50mm is about 26.5mm (14 x 1.9 = 26.5; 26.5 x 1.9 = 50). In other words, the focal length is about double as you go from 14 - 26.5 - 50. This is good spacing for primes, they are not too close that you waste time deciding between similar options, and not too far apart that you have big gaps in your range.</p> <p>Of course, there are no 26.5mm primes, so you could go either way with 24mm or 28mm. Personally I'd go with 28mm since it is a focal length I like - it has a nice wide feeling without causing too much distortion/stretching of objects at the edges. On the other hand you might feel 24 is a better fit between 14 and 50, or you may simply prefer that angle of view. The best option would be to take your 14 and 50 to a shop and try out both the 28 and 24, and see what works for you.</p>

<p>"Would not get either - but the newer 35/1.8G or the 50/1.8G."<br> "I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better."<br> You could compromise and go half way with the new Tamron 45/1.8 VC. The close-focus feature might be useful. Not sure when it hits the shops though...</p>

<p>If the slide shows a full range of tones from deepest shadows to bright highlights, and the dark parts of the slide are dense enough to block light from the flash, then as you increase the flash power you <em>will</em> increase the contrast - the shadows remain dark but the highlights continue to get brighter. To lower the contrast and record the full range of tones, I'd try turning down the flash and diffusing the light (which also tends to reduce grain). Experiment and see what works.</p>

<p>On the D700, the old AI 200/4 is a very good lens. It does have some CA since it is and older design that lacks ED glass but you won't see it unless there are high contrast areas in the picture. Sharpness is good and background rendition is generally smooth. The AI and AIS versions are similar mechanically and the same optically. Both have a built-in hood, and 9 aperture blades. My preference is for the AIS version since the aperture shape is rounder - the AI version has slightly shorter aperture blades which don't fully overlap so the opening has a saw-tooth effect which may show up in some pictures.</p> <p>Another option is the series-E 75-150/3.5. You trade a bit of reach for more speed, the ability to zoom and the ability to focus much closer. It's the same size as the 200/4.</p> <p>Or consider the AFS 70-300VR. It's a bit bigger and more expensive than the 200/4, but is more compatible with the D700 metering system, plus it has AF and VR. It's not the best at 300mm until you stop down a bit, but is fine up to 200mm.</p>

<p>I just checked my wife's D50: it has a full size FX mirror, and a DX size shutter.</p>

<p>When the rear filter is removed, the lens focuses a little closer, with the loss of infinity focus. If you are doing closeups with this lens, it is a useful trick. I have done this with my AIS 16mm fisheye, perhaps not so important with the AF version since it focuses closer anyway (0.25m vs 0.3m). Otherwise I just keep the UV filter in place.</p>

<p>Both the AF-D 60/2.8 micro and AF-D 105/2.8 micro that you mention focus from infinity to 1:1. Adding a 2x TC increases the magnification to 2:1 (2x life size), so you won't gain "close focusing ability" either way.</p> <p>TCs don't change the focus distance of the lens, so the overall working distance increased only by the length of the TC itself. That's because lens+TC combinations reduce in focal length as the master lens is focused closer.</p> <p>Both lenses show some focal length shortening as you focus closer - this helps to keep the lens relatively compact while enabling 1:1 magnification. The AF-D 60/2.8 micro reduces slightly to 50-55mm at close range, the AF-D 105/2.8 micro reduces to about 80mm at close range. Although the 105 focal length reduces more than the 60, it still retains a longer focal length and greater working distance than the 60.<br> <br />Overall, the greater working distance of the 105 is worth having for several reasons. It allows you to keep further back from shy insects, you are less likely to scare them away. When setting up, there is less chance the lens will crash into the subject by accident. Lighting is easier since the front of the lens is less likely to put a shadow across the subject. The longer focal length also means you see a narrower field of view in the background, so it appears less cluttered, and you have greater ability to isolate the subject against a nicely de-focused background.</p> <p>As others have mentioned, I would not use a 2x TC if you want the sharpest results. At far distances, you have a rather long slow lens (105/2.8 with 2x TC gives 210/5.6) which is probably not very sharp, even if you can hold it steady enough to prevent camera shake. At close range you don't gain much working distance, although you do get greater magnification.</p> <p>My preferred method for getting beyond 1:1 is to use the AF-D 105/2.8 mico with a PN-11 (52.5mm) extension tube. This combination will give up to 1.6x life size when focused close, with very good results. When the lens is "focused" to infinity you will get 1:2 magnification (when magnifications less than life size are required it is best to use the lens by itself). The PN-11 has the advantage of having an tripod mount, so the setup balances very nicely on a tripod, and you can easily rotate from landscape to portrait format while staying on target. Since the PN-11 has no CPU contacts, you will need to enter the CPU data (focal length, max aperture) into your camera, and use the aperture ring on the lens instead of the command dial. For the 105/2.8 + PN-11 I would enter focal length=105mm, aperture = f/4 because with the PN-11 you lose one stop due to extension.</p> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Actually, the "long nose" AI and AIS 50/1.8 have a different (and superior) optical design from the AF 50/1.8. The AF lens is based on the series-E and AIS pancake versions.<br> I regard the AI 50/1.8 as the best of the slower 50mm lenses - it is very sharp, bokeh is decent, it has a nicer 7-blade aperture than the 6-blade 50/2 versions, the barrel is small but not too small like the pancake versions, and it has a nice long focus throw.</p>