Matthew Brennan

<blockquote> <p>I thought VR isn't exactly the strength on the 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR lens, at least not around 1/100 sec or so.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have tested my copy (of the 300/4 E) right down to 1/25th sec - the VR performs for me better than the 70-200mm/2.8 VRI ever did and it's also better by a considerable margin than my micro 105mm VR at uber slow shutter speeds. By 'better' I mean significantly more keepers but of course shooting totally different subject matter.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I hope Nikon have something more exciting in the pipeline.</p> </blockquote> <p>Like an update for the 24-120/4 with VR akin to the 300/4 E please Nikon..... please..... ;-)</p>

<p>A Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.4 is something I do actually have hiding in the bottom of my lens bag........ It's indeed tiny and lightweight but I do have a subjective issue with that hexagonal bokeh it produces.......</p> <p>Might be time to trial it as a standard zoom substitute on a couple of photo day trips away from home to see if I can live with 50mm and zoom in and out with my feet. I'd be squeezing it in between a 14-24mm f/2.8 (non negotiable lens- it alawys comes with me) and the 70-200mm f/4. </p> <p>I have checked several recent batches of images where I have used the 24-70mm and 35mm to 50mm is where I use it most.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have been on a lens weight reduction crusade in recent months and with a 7 week overseas road trip coming up next May I'm thinking about just how heavy and bulky my 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is for a travel lens. I have no beef with the lens as a short trip and and around home lens however, I now have experienced the advantages of Nikon's f/4 zoom lens range like the 70-200/4 which provides plenty adequate IQ, superior VR and is so compact and light compared to the f/2.8 version I used to carry.</p> <p>The 24-120mm f/4 VR model is several years old and the 24-85mm variable f/3.5-4.5 lens is also a few years old now. I have tried both and can live with the optics but the VR on both of these lenses is not up to the same standard as the current VR on the likes of the 70-200/4 and the 300/4 E.</p> <p>My style is to carry a trio of zooms for travel and only a small tripod and ball head for occasional ND and grad exposures. I know p.net deals only in absolutes, not rumours, but is a new f/4 VR standard zoom likely to surface from Nikon in the next 7 months?</p>

<p>Excellent.</p> <p>I envy you!</p>

<p>Ok, assuming you are at B<strong><em>r</em></strong>ookings down on the Californian border and you are heading roughly south eastward to be in Vegas in a week's time.......... I see you have a couple of options.</p> <p>1) You have Lassen National Park in central NoCal which is the best kept secret in California - simply stunning scenery, great access (road is still open according to the internet as I type) and not as madly popular as Yosemite etc so not so crowded. Then take California State Highways 89 and 385 down the Eastern Sierra Nevadas to see Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake - again stunning scenery all the way from Tahoe - stay down at Bishop and go see the Bristlecone Pines then down to Mojave via Red Rock Canyon and onto the State Highway 58 and then the Interstate 15 that will take you through to Vegas.</p> <p>or</p> <p>2) You follow State Highways 101 and 1 all the way down the NoCal coast and see the magnificent redwood forests. Just over the border Crescent City is a good base to see Jeddadiah Smith, Ladybird Johnson and Prarie Creek Redwoods. Further south there are other great statnds of Redwoods at the Avenue of Giants, Humboldt Redwoods, Grizzly Creek and Cheatham Redwoods. The coastline between the Oregon border and San Francisco is also divine like southern Oregon. Head down to Point Reyes Coastal National Park before heading inland to catch the Insterstate 5 and all the way down to State Highway 58 to catch the Interstate 15 to Vegas.</p> <p>If you want some cool places to visit in the Mojave desert before you cross the Nevada border then sing out...........</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'd keep the TC 14E III and instead of a DX body, save up for the AF-S VR 300mm f/4 E PF prime lens.</p> <p>Yes, it most definately expensive, however it truly is compact ( shorter in physical length than your 70-200/4) and is lighter weight at only 864 grams with caps and hood which is fly weight for a telephoto prime lens.</p> <p>I use the 300/4 E on the D810 and have found it quite a revelation in that it is so compact and light, it autofocuses very well and has the best VR by a long way - even better than the 70-200/4 which I also use.</p> <p>I see no need for a tripod collar with the 300/4 E as the compact lightweight nature of it demands hand held use, however, as an aside - the good news is that if you do want one, it's the same RT-1 collar that fits both 300/4 E and your 70-200/4</p> <p>I have the TC 14 E II and it works acceptably well on the 300/4 E, possibly the newer TC 14 E III will be marginally better - you really want to use TC's on prime lenses. The 300/4 E + TC 14 E II makes a nifty 500mm f/5.6 set up and again is so portable.</p> <p>The 300/4 E will be the 2nd lens I pick in my bag to take with me to the USA/Canada next year for a 6 week long road trip and I always carry it in my camera pack everywhere at home/work/ photo excursions etc as it is truly so light and compact and produces excellent hand held birding shots.</p>

<p>Tristan,</p> <p>I'm sorry to hear that your equipment was stolen, an experience I never wish to have. Thank you for explaining where you are at. Ok, I understand what you mean by 'boring'.</p> <p>I have used the 17-35mm on my D810 and found it produced equally as sharp images to the 14-24mm (which I now use) in side by side tests in the shared 17-24mm focal length range. At 17mm the 17-35mm produces more distortion than my 14-24mm does at 17mm which is hardly surprising, however, I never found the wide end of the 17-35mm a weak point of the lens. If anything the 17-35mm was slower to focus than the 14-24mm is and it also lacks a little contrast or pure clrity over the 14-24mm but this may be <br /> In my experience, the 17-35mm is better suited to very close focus subject matter like fungi on a forest floor or wildflowers in a meadow - that sort of thing - with the 17-35mm the background is rendered more pleasingly than the 14-24mm which, in my subjective opinion, produces some surprisingly ugly bokeh when focusing on very close subjects ie close or on the min. focus distance.</p> <p>That said the 14-24mm has 14mm which on FX is truly vastly wide and really puts a smile on my face every time I use it. The wide end of the 14-24mm has distortion but mostly correctable in processing and a small price to pay for mind boggling wide angle. It's a challenge to use the 14-24mm a lot as framing up ultra wide exposures in the 14mm to 18mm range, I find is often a genuine compositional challenge about what to leave out more than what to put into the frame. The 14-24mm lens is def. a more 'exciting' lens than the 17-35mm, for many photographers is less practical being uber heavy, uber expensive and uber bulky and not being filter ready / compatible without the use of a third party custom filter set up like the ridiculously expensive Lee SW150 system.......... didn't stop me though, the 14-24mm is a gorgeous piece of glass to work with.</p> <p>My hand held shooting technique is not first class, perhaps not even second class........... and I find the D810 requires me to concentrate and be more methodical about hand held shooting than any other FX or DX body I've used before the D810. I have recently discovered some faith in VR lenses, in particular the VR systems on the 70-200mm f/4, the 105mm f/2.8 micro Nikkor and the 300mm f/4 E PF prime really work a treat for me on the D810.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>While I've always found my 17-55 to be a fantastic focal range, I have to admit that I often found it a bit boring</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps you are contradicting yourself here - 'fantastic' and 'boring' just don't equate to my way of thinking.</p> <p>What is your current DX set up lacking - where is it limiting your photographic experience? The D810 may not nec. be the answer.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The main benefit I gain from the D810 and it's 36MP sensor is that when shooting images (with 55mmf/3.5 micro Nikkor) for online mail order plant sales I can place my tripod setup back a considerable distance from the subject to gain both better DOF and also to allow better light (diffused,natural light) onto the subject ( I used to be so close that I blocked some light) Then crop tighter and be able to retain as much detail as I require for my online image files which can be 2048 pix wide sometimes.</p> <p>Admittedly I'm comparing the D810 to my previous camera the D700 with it's 12MP sensor.</p>

<p>When the stadium is perfectly round and the grandstands are tall for added drama then why not bust out the fisheye for something different?</p><div></div>

<p>Some excellent suggestions above.</p> <p>Do drive the 101 and the State Highway 1 all the way down to just north of San Francisco. If you think you don't have the time then simply make the time - a stretch of coastline and hinterland of absolute world class standard (speaking as an Australian)</p> <p>I recommend you head inland after Point Reyes National Seashore onto the Interstate 5 and straight down to LA. if you are pressed for time.</p> <p>I'd add to the above list that you stop and walk the trails and stops along the truly wonderful Samuel H Boardman State Scenic Reserve which is just north of the CA border in Oregon - simply magical with <em>the</em> most spectacular coastal scenic compositions I have ever seen.</p>

<p>Useful and informative. I wish more p.net members posted info reports like this.</p>

<p>My camera bodies often get dirty build up from me handling them in dusty/gritty conditions with sweaty hands - leaves the thumb rest and front grip sticky and discoloured.</p> <p>I use an automotive plastic polymer protectant like Armour All or Plexus - just spray onto a clean natural fibre cloth (cotton) and wipe it on and off. A few fresh wipes might be required for prolonged build up - brings the rubberized parts back looking close to new.</p> <p>As for the peeled off rubber part, my D700 thumb rest rubber partially peeled away from the body. I just cleaned under the rubber (both rubber and body sides) with a small dab of methylated spirits on a cotton ear bud then used a small amount of ruuberised shoe repair glue on both surfaces - clamped down for 24hr thn never had that problem again......</p>

<p>Several Nikkor lenses have so called 'focus breathing', it's not exclusive to the 18-300mm DX and even top line lenses like the Micro Nikkor 105mm VR will do this, it's not a lens fault nor is it anything to worry about- just keep in mind that if you use this lens to really close focus the length will shorten considerably. </p> <p>Anyone who wants to replicate this with their copy of the 18-300mm DX lens will need to know exactly the distance to the subject.</p> <p>Take your camera outside and focus on something on the distant horizon and you will get obtain max. reach.</p>