elliot1

<p>This is a pretty good review of the f4 lens:</p> <p>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_70-200mm_f4G_ED_VR/</p>

<p>DXO software is capable of correcting very complex distortions. The software used lens specific data for its corrections and you may find improved results with DXO. They offer a free trial for 30 days. I think it is worth a try.</p>

<p>Good point! It doesn't sound like the OP is likely using one anyway. Trying the f4 version out prior to selling the f2.8 is a wise decision.</p>

<p>Something else to consider...</p> <p>The f4 version does not include a tripod collar. I don't know if you ever use a tripod/monopod with with lens but if you do, this feature or lack of is something to consider. The genuine Nikon tripod collar for the f4 version is about $200. It will also add some additional weight to the lens.</p> <p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Miscellaneous/RT-1-Tripod-Collar-Ring.html</p> <p>I don't know the actual weight of it, but according to Amazon product info, it weighs about 7 oz., so comparing apples to apples, there is less of a weight difference between the f4 and original f2.8 versions (version I is slightly lighter than version II).</p> <p>If you don't ever use a tripod or monopod, it may be something you might want to consider at least using a monopod. When I use my D3 with the 70-200mm, I find the combo gets quite heavy quite quickly, and I have often used a monopod to lighten the load when I have had to use the gear to cover an event.</p> <p>Of course, if you never do, you can unclip the bottom part of the tripod collar to lighten your current f2.8 lens a bit. Either way, there is just not a huge weight savings from the f4 to original f2.8 version.</p> <p>Another very important consideration is AF in low light, as pointed out in Shun's review:</p> <p><em>"However, under dim light indoors or at night, there is still a difference between a lens whose maximum aperture is f2.8 and one that is f4. When it is dark, the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR still has superior AF, regardless of whether you actually use that lens wide open at f2.8."</em><br /> <br /> Since you state that you shoot low light often, this is something you need to be aware of.</p>

<p>There is a little over 1lb of difference between the 70-200mm VR f2.8 and f4 lenses - not a huge difference.</p> <p>The 24-120mm is 1 1/2 ounces lighter than the 17-55mm.</p> <p>Have you considered keeping what you have so you have your low light photography covered and then getting a couple of light weight similar focal length lenses for good lighting? While Nikon's 'kit' lenses are inexpensive and lightweight, when it comes to image quality, they are actually very, very, very good. Nikon's 18-55mm (weights only 9 oz) and 55-200mm (weights only 12 oz) or similar could be the way to go.. Considering how little each of these lenses cost, both under $100 each used, this option could work for you, allowing you to keep the excellent lenses you have and solve the weight issue when you want to shed a few pounds. And not hurt your wallet too badly.</p> <p>Another option that would be just to add a couple of lightweight primes, again, keeping your current lenses.</p>

<p>Just curious, did you shoot RAW and if so, how did you process the image?</p>

<p><em>"</em><em> i would think even a large amount of field curvature would go away by f8"</em> I have never heard that stopping down a lens would correct this type of distortion. But post processing with software that offers distortion correction certainly does, and rather easily - the various distortions this lens creates are easily correctable during post processing.</p> <p>As I was unaware of this, I did a bit of research and found some interesting articles:</p> <p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down</p> <p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/10/the-seven-deadly-aberrations</p> <p>http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/field-curvature---a-practical-guide<br /> <br /> <br /> Very interesting indeed! In any case, I have always relied on automatic software to correct this type (actually all types) of distortion, so they have never been an issue on any lens I use.</p> <p><br /> As far as corner sharpness goes, this lens certainly can give the appearance of soft corners because DOF can be rather narrow.<br /> <br /> Can you post some example images illustrating the various issues you are having?<br /> <br /> Since you feel you are getting sub par images with this lens, I suggest you send it in to Nikon to have it checked just to be sure there is nothing wrong with your lens. If you bought the lens new, it would still be under warranty.</p>

<p>The 18-105mm is like 2 lenses in one, giving you some extra reach, which is nice to have when you need it. The VR feature is also nice when you need it. Since you owned it, I am not telling you something you do not know. If you don't need the extra reach or the VR features at all, save your money and just go with the 18-70mm. IMHO, they are both nice to have, even if rarely used (the times you do need/use them, you will be glad they are there). IQ is pretty much the same between the two.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think the body is a winner. Its low light AF performance is excellent. Its image quality it excellent even at high ISO (its high ISO performance is very, very close to the D3S - so close it would be difficult to see any differences in typically sized prints). The price is certainly right! What is there not to like? But no, I would not trade a D3S for it. Nor would I get a D750 over a D810 unless money was an issue.</p>

<p>final one.</p><div></div>

<p>2nd</p><div></div>

<p>Some sunrise shots</p><div></div>

<p>According to their analysis, IQ wise, the D750 is basically the same as the D610, which is really no surprise. But I think the many improved features, especially with regard to AF, makes the D750 an excellent choice over many other Nikon choices. You can read the full review here:</p> <p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D750-Sensor-Review-Another-Nikon-sensor-in-the-DxOMark-top-10</p> <p>A comparison to the D610 and D810 is here:</p> <p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D750-Sensor-Review-Another-Nikon-sensor-in-the-DxOMark-top-10/Nikon-D750-vs-D810-vs-D610-Nikon-D810-still-the-king-of-DSLR-image-quality</p>

<p>DXO's test results (which should be released very soon) should be quite revealing as to whether the D750's sensor really is better/improved. The in-camera JPGs certainly are.</p>

<p>Thanks Mukul.</p>

<p>That article you link to has some has some inaccuracies (especially in its cost estimate of $20,000 for a professional scan) and its lens recommendation (such as the use of a zoom lens and its focal length). Companies that offer high quality fine art scans are plentiful and high quality scan can be done for a fraction of the price listed. For example, I found this site that willscan a 48" x 48" canvas for just $100:<br /> <br /> http://www.bellevuefineart.com/art-scanning-prices/<br /> <br /> Chances are there is a similar company in your area.</p> <p>Typically a prime lens (non-zoom) will give better results than a zoom. And chances are a lens with a much lower focal length, such as 35mm or 50mm will get the job done nicely.</p> <p>I assume you are not selling prints taken with your iPhone so how are you handling your artwork now? What is your budget for equipment? Do you know of someone who is experienced in this type of photography that can assist you, at least to start?</p> <p>If you want to take the time to do it yourself, any recent Nikon DSLR body will do - the key to high quality images is the setup you use, making sure your camera is perfectly perpendicular to your artwork and having the proper lighting. And of course having a good lens.</p>

<p>Do you possibly have red-eye reduction turned on?</p>

<p>The Boss Project – Bruce Springsteen Tribute</p><div></div>

<p>2nd shot</p><div></div>

<p>#1</p><div></div>

<p>A couple of shots from the 2014 Gracias Christmas Cantata that was on tour in my area last week.</p>

<p>Corrected image easily, quickly and effectively fixed (unlike Photoshop, this is virtually all done automatically and required only about 15 seconds of time)</p><div></div>

<p>I took this shot at 24mm (24-70mm f2.8) at f2.8 to show how much less the various distortions are vs the 17-55mm lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Kent, this may help you as well:</p> <p>http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/keystoning/</p> <p>although I don't think it will fully resolve some of the issues that lens present at 17mm.</p>

<p>Ruslan, using a lens like the 85mm wide open poses many challenges and requires exceptionally good technique and knowledge of the camera's AF performance to get it 'right'. Keep in mind that the AF points in the viewfinder and not necessarily EXACTLY where the AF point is located.</p> <p>Without proper care, I can understand why many would think the lens/camera combo is not working properly. Many using far less critical combinations have similar issues and often blame the equipment. </p>