brooks_lester

<p>Sanford - I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. </p>

<p>AF Fine Tune of +20 seems to be working well. On static subjects like household furniture, cars, flowers, and sprinkler heads, I'm getting accurate focussing at f/2 and up. Once thing that I noticed with both 105DC's and my 105f/2.AIS is that in some instances the AF/Rangefinder focussing "sees" wisps of hair and other things I'm not aware of near the focus point and focusses on the hair strand rather than the eye that lies behind. I try to avoid this but it's very hard with candids. </p>

<p>105DC; f/2 @ 1/4000, ISO 200, 150/1/0 USM in PS4 to accentuate focussed/defocussed areas. Focus point was the screw in the very center of the sprinkler head:</p>

<p><a title="Sprinkler Head 1/4000 @ f/2, 150-1-0USM by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/basenjidude/3421791442/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3421791442_187e1fe789_b.jpg" alt="Sprinkler Head 1/4000 @ f/2, 150-1-0USM" width="1024" height="682" /></a></p>

<p>Jeremy, again, thanks so much for sharing your findings - I'm going to download and archive this thread to keep your posts available for referral and give me a better understanding of the lens.</p>

<p>Jeremy : Thanks for the in-depth post - full of useful information from someone with more ability and patience than me. I understand most of what you're saying on first read and will re-examine you post to glean more from it. I think my lens is behaving a lot like yours - and I intend to keep it. In the long run I think I'll end up getting an 85mm f/1.4AF-D just to have the other highly-celebrated Nikkor short portrait lens. I have taken a few pictures with both copies of the 105's that I've had and there is definitely something unique and highly flattering about the way this lens "paints" skin - worth all of the confusion about focussing. </p>

<p>Andreas: yeah, the possibility that a further, unavailable AF Fine Tune value past +20 might result in even better autofocus drives me nuts.So far, +20 looks just right in terms of where focus point is falling when shooting static non-human targets. I'll make real world tests today...<br>

Ikka: Good point and I think a firmware fix might just fix the problem. Some one reported that their D3 initially front focussed their 105DC and a firmware update apparently solved the problem. </p>

<p>Is your gear insured? You bought the lenses to use them, not store them. None of your lenses is irreplaceable or particularly expensive. I would also take an ultra wide lens - one that goes to at least 16-17mm on DX - and 12mm would be a better wide extreme. Be aware of dust when changing lenses. Enjoy the trip - I'm jealous! </p>

 

<p>Christiaan and Ikka, I'm concerned if I send both the body and lens in for adjustment, and have the body's focussing system serviced, that all 5 of my other lenses may not perfectly focus anymore. Does that make sense?<br>

I don't have to make any AF Fine Tune adjustments with my 24-70mmf/2.8AF-S, 50mmf/1.8AF, 24-85mmf/3.5-4.5, 24mmf/2.8AF, or Tamron 28-75f/2.8AF.<br>

AF Fine Tune @ +20 seems to be helping - I shot a bunch of statics shots last night that look correctly focussed. I'll spend today doing real-world tests and go from there. </p>

<p>I have a previous post about this issue with the first 105DC that I bought a few weeks ago. It was returned to B&H for another copy. Both lenses front focus to the same degree. There are a couple of threads on this topic both here and at dpreview's Nikon forum. I could not get rid of the front focussing on the first copy by using AF Fine Tune. There is apparently something about the 105DC's defocus control that may confuse the D700 AF system, even if DC is off. Another poster speculated about it in the previous threads. A few folks have been able to get accurate focussing by just slightly turning the DC ring towards F2 but not far enough to click into the F2 stop. If AF Fine Tune completely cures the problem, that's OK. Strangely, some 105DC/D700 users report perfect focussing. Again, it's all in the threads from the previous discussions.</p>

<p>I'll see tomorrow if I can AF Fine Tune it away. Reports seem to be accurate that this lens tends to front focus on D700's. I really like the 105 focal length - my 105mm f/2.5 AIS is as perfect as can be - it's just not autofocus. I'm seriously considering returning the 105DC and getting an 85mm f/1.4AF-D as my main AF portrait lens. That's where I started anyway, thinking I'd get the 85 and then discovering the 105DC. This involves a lot of shipping and waiting...</p>

<p>I concur with Lex - the only reason I use NX2 is for initial processing of .nef files. Once I'm out of the .nef environment I edit .tiffs in Photoshop.<br>

Yes, the NIK control points can be useful in some circumstances, but I greatly prefer Photoshop for curves, sharpening, layers, and retouching. Photoshop also offers automation for the types of batch processing you are trying to do.</p>

<p>24-70mm f/2.8AF-S, 85mm f/1.4AF, 105mm f/2 DC, 180mm f/2.8AF ED IF, 105mm f/2.5 AIS, 55mm f/2.8 AIS; and a few more. <br>

What other lenses have you shot with other than your 70-200VR, 16-85VR, and Tokina 11-16? Nikon's got a pretty big lens inventory...</p>

<p>I think it's a nice compact lens with pretty good sharpness as you start to close the aperture down toward f/8-11. Now that I have the 24-70 I can look at another lens at the same focal length. Sure, the 24-70 is sharper, has more contrast, and generally looks better (other than distortion, which is worse on the 24-70 but tame-able in PS) at 24mm than the 24mm f/2.8 AF, but it's a much much larger, heavier, and expensive way to get a 24mm perspective. If you own a 28-XXX zoom, like it, and want a wider look, the 24mm f/2.8AF is a relatively inexpensive and compact way to get there without moving up to the 24-70 AFS.</p>

<p>Handheld, D700, 24mmf/2.8AF (not the "D" version"). <br /> f/7, 1/500 sec <br /> It may be profiled as Adobe RGB, couldn't tell from the flickr EXIF data so color may not be as vivid if you're not viewing it on a Mac w/ the Safari browser. Not a bad lens in my opinion and as we speak I'm selling it on "the auction site" with a fairly low reserve.<br /> <a title="Sunny Isle Pier by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3258069493_414f463afd_b.jpg" alt="Sunny Isle Pier" width="1024" height="681" /></a></p>

<p>Whoops, I meant to say I sent my 24-70AFS back to B&H with NO hassles what so ever. I left out the "no" in my original post.</p>

<p>I'm a believer in in B&H as well. I bought a Nikon 24-70AFS from B&H last month and it was defective. Sent it back to B&H for exchange with hassles what so ever and the new copy is excellent. I just bought a 105mm f/2 DC and it too has had to go back to B&H for exchange. I hope the new 105 is a good copy.<br>

I too wonder about Nikon QC and what happens to these returned lenses. It doesn't seem that Nikon is doing enough testing of built lenses and making adjustments to their manufacturing methods/protocols/tolerances when two "pro" lenses in back to back purchases are defective and have to be exchanged for new copies that one hopes are correctly functioning. What does that say about the higher-end lenses as well as the less expensive ones?</p>

<p>No camera in current production can come close to the dynamic range you're looking for. You need to either put more light on the subject to match the background illumination, frame such that you can use a graduated ND filter to darken the background, or reframe the shot to get less disparate EV values for the subject and background. I think the greatest amount of dynamic range I've read of for a digital camera is about 12 stops. Your readings are six stops greater in difference than that value. </p>

<p>Hey, wait a minute, now it's working. I guess there was a hiccup some where in the "system" and I was inserting the link correctly all after all without adding the <img> tag. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. I was trying to link to my flickr images by simply copying the html and pasting to the photo.net message. It didn't work initially and then I tried adding the <img> tag. That didn't work either - just pasting the html was actually the right way to go. Blah, blah, blah.</p>

<p>Sorry, I can't remember how to post an image by linking to my flickr site. Can some one refresh my memory? The FAQ section of photo.net is confusing me: where to I place the <img alt="" /> tag on a flickr html of my image?<br>

Example: What do I do to this to make it a visible image in my post?<br>

Nikon D700 <br>

<a title="Sunny Isle Pier by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3258069493_414f463afd_b.jpg" alt="Sunny Isle Pier" width="1024" /></a> <br>

or do I use this gobbldegook with the <img alt="" /> tag place somwhere?<br>

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3258069493_414f463afd_b.jpg</p>

<p>Next image:<br>

Nikon N80/Kodak Portra 400VC<br>

<a title="Hapuna Beach Sunset by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2243764237_a7048738f0_b.jpg" alt="Hapuna Beach Sunset" width="1024" height="683" /></a><br /><br>

TIA</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep, it's normal. Nikon's AF lenses tend to have some play when the mobile sections of the barrel are handled. It's considered normal. I believe the increased play is a "feature" of the plastic-bodied AF lenses. My 24mm f/2.8AF does the same thing - and makes good images.:<br /> D700<br>

<a href=" title="Sunny Isle Pier by SuperFriend, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3258069493_414f463afd_b.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Sunny Isle Pier" /></a><img><br /><br /> N80/Portra 400VC<br /><a href=" title="Hapuna Beach Sunset by SuperFriend, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2243764237_a7048738f0_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="Hapuna Beach Sunset" /></a><img></p>

<p>Did you lock the Tamron's aperture ring at f/22 (or whatever the most closed-down value is)? That's necessary to enable the camera to operate the lens' diaphragm. There should be a lock button on the aperture ring that engages at the smallest aperture value. <br>

In terms of autofocus, you may have been in too little light for the Tamron's f/2.8 lens to focus quickly. The 50mm f/1.8 might have focussed better because its f/1.8 aperture puts more light into the camera for better autofocus in darker conditions. <br>

The other possibility for both issues is that you didn't have the Tamron lens mounted fully into locked position on the camera body and the camera wasn't making electrical contact with the lens because the body and lens electrical contacts were not aligned.</p>

<p>Nice images and captions - it's nice to have the artist's verbal perceptions accompany the visuals</p>

<p>Go straight to the D700 without hesitation. Image quality and the "feel" of full frame 35mm DSLR are closest to the formats you've been shooting. You're advanced in technique and understanding of photography. If you buy less than a full frame DLSR now you'll just end up selling your cropped frame sensor and moving up to full frame at a later date - which will ultimately cost more than just buying full frame now. <br>

You'll also have access to the full catalog of Nikon 35mm lenses. The modern lenses are truly fabulous for their ring motor focussing, ED glass and nano crystal coatings, and the best classic manual focus Nikorrs are still outstanding lenses. I just bought a manual focus 105mm f/2.5 AIS that's was designed in the 70's. It looks spectacular on my D700, but so does my new tech 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S. You'll get the best of both worlds with a full frame Nikon DLSR. The bonus is that the high ISO ability of these cameras will blow you away - there is no prior equivalent to shooting in available light at ISO 6400 and getting CLEAN images with minimal noise (grain). <br>

You have a lot to look forward to. BTW, I love shooting film and still do - I have a Nikon FM2n, 2 N80's, an Olympus OM2n, plus a Nikon 35mm strip scanner. I still think film has a better subjective look, especially for skin tones, but the benefits and ease of shooting digital combined with the increasingly competitive color values are making it less and less attractive to shoot film unless you want an organically derived look or prefer the craft of shooting film. </p>

 

<p>Thanks Christiaan. I have sent the lens back to B&H for exchange with another new lens. I'll try the DC "nudge" if the new lens also front focusses. As I posted earlier, some people report correct AF with their 105DC's and D700/D3's, so I'm hoping the new 105 I get works flawlessly too. <br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Christiaan: So you're saying you found you only had to move the DC ring LESS than a full click away from Neutral to establish correct AF? I may have grouped your post in with others that mention moving the ring a full click to F2 when shooting at f/2. I might be willing to accept the lens as is if an incremental turn could correct the problem. I just want to avoid introducing unwanted DC effects in order to establish correct focussing. </p>

<p>The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 AF would give you a great range of focal lengths, is very sharp, and has superb bokeh (quality of defocussed areas), which is an important aspect in choosing a portrait lens. Used on a DX body like yours, it would be equivalent to 42-150mm on a 35mm camera, which is a good range for half body to tight head shots. In terms of primes, the best cheap prime with great bokeh might be the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro, which is also very sharp and has true macro (close up) capability. Both lenses are now available in ring motor (AF-S) version for Nikon cameras and cost under $400 from the cheapest on-line retailers. <br /> My only complaint with the non-Nikon lenses is that they have a slightly yellow (warm) cast. Some people actually like that quality but I prefer a neutral look from the glass.</p>