tombest

<p>I would have assumed that camera shake would have resulted in some sort of linear movement that I could detect, but that's not what I am seeing. And if this is the result of the OEM lens foot, then the foot is horrible indeed. It's funny that the Sigma 150-600 sport on the same tripod setup (albeit with the Sigma foot) shows none of the lack of clarity - with or without the OS on. And to find balance on that lens @ 600mm the lens foot was almost off the mounting plate of the head. It was attached to a 6" mounting plate that needed to be almost at the front of the mount in order to balance leaving the actual lens foot mostly rearward of the mount.<br> One last shot and then I'll leave this alone. The next two shots are of a Blue Winged Teal flapping its wings. This was shot at 1/3000th of a second. I cannot detect any sharpness anywhere in this photo. I don't see linear shake and the shutter was fast enough to freeze droplets of water in mid-flight. It could have been a really nice capture but is totally unusable. 1st the whole picture and then a 100% crop. Thanks,</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>For some reason I can't see any of the images I have uploaded. I can't even see them on my iPad. I don't know if the uploaded images are visible and if they represent what I am experiencing with this lens. There are large blocks of space where an image should be but the screen is blank.<br> Tom</p>

<p>Image from above crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Yes, the lens rented is the 300mm F4.0 AF-S and I knew of the crappy lens foot. Here is a shot of a Great Egret shot at 1/2000th of a second @ f9.5 - ISO 400 in a 100% crop. The Great Blue Heron was shot at 1/125th of a second... all using a cable release so I didn't have to touch the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>Hmm... cant see the images. Let's try this again.</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop</p><div></div>

<p>70-200 VR1 + TC1.4e @ ISO 400</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop from that image</p><div></div>

<p>I have an issue with a lens I rented for an recent outing. I have always heard of the 300 f4.0's legendary sharpness so I was anxious to try one out for myself. I rented one of these lenses from an agency here in Florida while a friend of my rented one of the new Sigma 150-600 sport lenses (different rental company). We planned a weekend of shooting and comparing at local wetlands and was certain the 300's sharpness would trump not only the Sigma but anything else I have tried to day. Unfortunately, after over 400 unclear pictures on day one, I left it at home. I was unable to get an acceptably sharp photo. In my day-one outing, I had the lens attached to my D7000 along with a TC14E-II converter. It was all mounted to my Induro C413 tripod and a gimbal head. (I can get silly sharp photos with my 70-200 + TC14 on this tripod rig - I don't have a stability issue.) I tried different shutter speeds and apertures. Not one keeper.</p> <p>When I went home, I rigged up a makeshift lens align jig to see if I had a back-focus issue but didn't identify a problem there. I tried it without the converter with the same results. I thought I would post a couple of shots I took that day to see if anyone can weigh in on whether this is acceptable sharpness. I have included 100% crops of converted jpegs for examination along with a shot taken a few days earlier with my 70-200 VR1 + TC14e converter and my tripod/head combo. None of the posted pics have undergone any noise reduction or sharpening of any kind. As you can see from 70-200/TC14e shot, the camera is capable of pretty fine detail. Incidentally, the Sigma 150-600 blows the Nikon 300 f4.0 away. It's a monster but it's sharp and clear. Didn't have any of the same issues with the Sigma. Any thoughts?</p>

Great story Laura. Two days ago I was at a local wetland where there were nests everywhere. Most of the time they are well away from the boardwalk so seeing into a nest is a rarity. However, one Tri-Colored Heron pair chose to nest fairly close to the walk. I waited at this nest until 'the changing of the guard' came. The nest was exposed for a few seconds as mom and dad switched places. I had to shoot through the slats in the fence so there is some vignetting in the photo. Could have edited it out but I chose to leave. The whole event last 20 seconds.<div></div>

<p>On a completely different note... I use a D7000 and a good friend has a D7100. We have done side-by-side low-light comparisons and there is no question that the D7100 doesn't handle low light as well as the D7000 does. His has a lot of resolution (more than I have) but when things get dark, it suffers. So I get your desire to move to something that covers dark environments better than your D7100. But if low-light is one of your primary concerns, is a D750 maybe a better choice? Might give you some headroom to cover the lenses you want. Just a thought.<br> Tom</p>

<p>Tri-Colored Heron in mating colors from last weekend's outing @ Wakodahatchee Wetlands in S Florida.</p><div></div>

<p>If this were a test and there could only be one right answer, the correct answer would be the 35mm f1.8. The key words from the OP being 'better for all around'. The 50mm is more of a specialty lens on Dx, the 35mm more 'normal'. I got both of them this year for Christmas. They are both wonderfully sharp and contrasty on my D7000 but I prefer the 35.</p> <p>What concerns me about your question is the mention of a music festival. Neither might be appropriate depending on how close you will be able to approach your subjects. For that, a zoom with some reach is a better choice. And unless travelling to Europe is commonplace for you, throw a little caution to the wind. Perhaps renting a lens would be an option? You might be able to rent something you wouldn't consider purchasing due to cost considerations and have what you really need. I'm doing that with a buddy this weekend. We're spending a little mad money to rent both a 300mm f4.0 and a 150-600mm zoom to see what we like best for birding. I'd rather spend $100 and make an educated decision than $1000 or more and regret what I bought later. You're looking at $200 lenses so it's not a great loss if you find you purchased something you won't use all the time but renting is a viable consideration unless you're going to be gone all summer.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>+1 for the Acratech GV-2. Only weighs a pound and is rated (and will easily hold) 25#. I use it on my travel rig with an Induro CT214. It easily holds my D7000 with a grip / 70-200 F2.8 with a TC1.4. Easily.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Here is some <em>breeding</em> color found in Tri-colored Herons this time of year in Florida. It was a crummy day weather-wise but there were several Tri-coloreds with their bright blue beaks 'performing' for their partners. (Real or imagined). The wetlands in South Florida are rich with nests. Great time to be out.<br> Tom</p> <div></div>

<p>Peter, can't comment on the comparison (not sure many will have had both the version I & II) but I have the version I on my D7000. It is a great performer, but I have had instances where flare becomes an issue... Not a deal breaker but I would try to keep direct sun from it for the best pictures. I have heard the version II is better in that regard. </p> <p>It is an extremely useful and fun focal length making me glad I bought it instead of the 11-16. I find I am using it at its 24mm length more often than the 12. The difference between 11mm and 16mm is pretty small but if distortion and effect are what you are after, it would give you that in spades. But for me, the 12-24 is ideal. 12-28... even better. You're no stranger to lugging heavy glass around with your 17-55 so the 12-24 wouldn't be an issue, but I was surprised at its heft. It's a solid little lens. If I had to only have one lens on my camera and I wasn't going to encounter wildlife, it would be my little Tokina 12-24. It can be a VERY sharp lens, especially when stopped down a little.</p> <p>Tom</p> <p> </p>

<p>Can't comment on your need for or usability of the 50mm F1.8G but I received one for Christmas along with a 35mm F1.8 (DX) for my D7000. I <em>can</em> say that the 50 is a seriously sharp lens, and in some cases, almost <em>too</em> sharp for portraits. It will endure as a lens and its value is very high since it's only a couple hundred bucks to buy. You have to decide if it's the right focal length for what you plan to shoot, but it's a great little lens. Kent is probably on to something with the 58mm for portraits.<br> Tom<br> </p>

I'm glad that will work for you. Good luck with your project. Tom

<p>Here is a down and dirty fix of this photo. This is an extremely difficult fix and I have only covered some of it. I used a variety of tricks such as clone stamp, copy and paste and the healing brush in Photoshop CC. I also used liberal amounts of blur and darkening to hide some the of the fixes. I then erased the darkening of your brother so that he remained as you shot him. I also did a minor amount of noise removal to get some of the blotchiness out. Again, this is tough and there isn't a lot to work with. As others have said, this would have been better to reshoot but since that wasn't an option, you're left with repairing what you have. Wish I could be more helpful.<br> I attached the fix as a full sized jpg in the event you want to save it and work with it a little more. I've done a lot of the heavy lifting though.<br> </p><div></div>

<p>Kent, one last thing. I have read about some focus point issues with the Sigma 35 F1.4. Had any trouble in that area with yours? And did you have to buy the dock and calibrate it?</p>

<p>Kent, funny that you should mention that Sigma. I have been reading reviews on the Nikon 35 F1.8 and the Sigma 35 F1.4 and everyone raves about that Sigma. In fact, it is one of the sharpest ever lenses on a D8XX. If it will resolve on a D800/810, I'm sure it would still be amazing on my D7000. It's expensive, but... </p> <p>I was also looking at the Sigma 30mm F1.4. DX only and although it rates as a sharp lens, it seems to have pretty serious CA issues. The Nikon 35 F1.8 is the least expensive way into a 'normal'... I'm still thinking. And, as you mentioned, the Sigma 35 F1.4 covers FF if I decide to go that route eventually. Thanks.</p>

<p>I guess what I have been blaming the camera for isn't really its fault. Wandering around the house with almost no light and hoping to get decent shots is unfair when the light isn't good to begin with. So, I think you have all answered my question and I appreciate the comments. Wouter, I think I'll take your advice and buy the 35mm F1.8.</p>

<p>I just took this shot with my D7000 and my 85mm F1.8D. This was taken at ISO 3200 with pretty dim ambient light that is predominantly from a CFL through a shade. F2.8 @1/15 second. I converted it to JPG with Capture NX-D, ran it through Topaz Denoise and Topaz Detail, then downsampled it to fit @ 700 pixels width. The noise isn't really bad and the detail isn't either. Not sure if a FF is going to do any better, so that's why I'm asking.</p><div></div>

I usually don't print over 16 X 20 and only for my own walls or as gifts. More get shared with friends and family through the web. I like to shoot our cats around the house so ISO 6400 isn't out of the question. Also, if I wander to one of the local wetlands or parks here in south Florida, bumping ISO helps with early morning birding and shake-free shots. I know I lose the 1.5 multiplier with FF and a 70-200 is barely enough, but some of our birding ops here allow us to get pretty close and I have a TC14E if I need the reach, albeit at a penalty..

<p>The recent 2nd price drop on the D610 has me seriously thinking. I am drawn to the low light performance it purportedly has. I currently have a D7000 with some decent glass that will cover some FF and am wondering if the D610 will be a significant upgrade in low-light indoor photography? A friend recently bought a D7100 and while it has more resolution and a better auto focus module, it is noticeably noisier at ISO 1600 and above compared to my D7000. For what I shoot, resolution is not a limiting factor and while the D7000 doesn't always find focus fast in lousy light, it is so much better than my previous D200 that I'm satisfied with it as is. I would expect the low light focus of the D610 to be similar to what I have. The D750 is a lust item but the difference in price is a hurdle for me.</p> <p>I cut my teeth on a Minolta X570 and a 50mm F1.7 lens. I loved the look of the photos and bokeh I got with that combo and am thinking a D610 and 50mm F1.8 would produce the look and perspective that started my love of photography in the first place. But... </p> <p>Another option would be to buy the DX 35mm F 1.8 and use it with my D7000. I mostly read good things about that lens and they are certainly cheap enough. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is also a lust item that might be an option as well, if I decide to invest in some glass instead of a camera.</p> <p>Something new is coming soon and it will do something better than the D7100 so I'm a little torn about waiting for the expected new announcement vs taking advantage of a very good deal (that may not last) on a very good D610. Anyone out there have both the D7000 and a D610 and can comment on the noticeable or perceived differences in the two? </p> <p>For the record, I currently have a 60mm F 2.8 macro, 85mm F1.8D and the 70-200 F2.8 VRI that will cover FF. I know the 70-200 has its limitations corner to corner and can be soft at 200 wide open but it's not horrible. I also have the 24-120 F3.5-5.6 but it isn't a good performer even on DX. OK but not got great. It will cover FF in a pinch, but I intend to keep my D7000 and have a Tokina 12-24 F4.0. The D610 seems to be a lot of camera for its current discounted price. Any thoughts?</p>