chip_chipowski

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>I have used the 85mm f/1.8 G on a D700 and I like it very much. I have not used it on my D300, but I would be happy to take some sample shots and post within the next few days. Just pragmatically, it seems like the 85mm would be the better choice for bokeh <em>quantity</em>. You'll have an easier time achieving subject separation with the longer lens. The 50mm would allow you to work a bit closer to your subject compared to the 85.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Wouldn't it be great to do away with the twisting?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nope :)</p>

<p>My experience with Nikon is very different from robert stig - he is painting with a very broad and angry brush. </p>

<p>Sounds like you must be right and Nikon must be wrong. :)</p> <p>Seriously though, what kind of service did Nikon recommend for your camera? Also, I agree with Shun's recommendation for doing some tripod tests. It is not clear from your description as to what exactly is wrong at 200mm except that you say it is not the same perfect result as 185mm. Can you tell whether it is focus error or just poor resolution?</p>

<p>I would want the camera and lenses in a Pelican case. The tripod could be a little less protected I think, like a dry bag or some plastic bag concoction. </p> <p>You are talking about a sea plane?</p>

<p>Lorinda - where are you taking most of your photos? You can try these settings:</p> <p>Indoors: ISO 800, f/2.8 and 1/100. Try that and take a look at the photo. If too bright, you can make your shutter speed faster (like 1/160) or you change the aperture (try f/4, 5.6, etc.). If too dark, do the opposite.<br> For outdoors, try ISO 200, f/4 and 1/100. <br> These are just suggestions to get you in the right ballpark. Then you can fine tune. Like I mentioned above, if you photo is too bright you can use a faster shutter speed or change the aperture. As you go from f/1.8 to f/16, the photos will get progressively darker. </p>

<p>Airplane slinking away</p><div></div>

<p>Ken - no easy answers when it comes to camera gear. That's why this is a lifelong addiction. I want to say a quick word about the 18-35 f/1.8. If you do find yourself considering that lens, I highly recommend you try it first. It looks like a high quality lens, but the thing is big. Especially when it comes to family photos, a big lens like that could get in the way. Regarding Nikon vs third party flashes, I like sticking with Nikon. SB-600 is a great flash with a lot more options than SB-400 - BUT it is bigger. When in doubt, take baby steps and gradually you will come to learn what gear works best for you. </p>

<p>Robert, I concur with your "MY MENU" suggestion. This is a great spot to park those particular menu items I use frequently (auto-ISO) and also the ones I want to be able to quickly access in the moment (AF-actuation, self-timer, etc). </p>

<blockquote> <p>are you saying your copy of the sigma 30 was sharp at 1.4? </p> </blockquote> <p>I am saying sharpness was sufficient for me at f/1.4 (assuming accurate focus, which is a BIG FREAKING CAVEAT when talking about f/1.4 lenses). </p> <p>Ken - as you point out, you've already got an 18-55. That kit lens has always been quite good for the money, and so there is no reason to get rid of it if you are happy. You could go 18-140 for more flexibility, or you could get a 55-200VR. The 55-200VR is another great value and should work great for kid photos in good light. The SB-400 is a nice little flash with limitations. It is nice and portable and can work great for bounce flash if you don't need a lot of power. It only tilts up, so your options are somewhat limited on the direction of the bounce.</p>

<p>Kent - from your description, I can't tell if you are setting the non-CPU lens data each time you mount a new manual focus lens. If the lens doesn't have a CPU, then you have to tell the camera what is mounted (i.e. focal length and maximum aperture). Personally, I assign non-CPU lens data to the front Fn button. The camera will store a number of different lenses. Just press on the Fn button and scroll through to find the right lens information.</p> <p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Ken - take a look at this lens rentals articles on the different Sigma 30mm versions: <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc/">LINK</a></p> <p>I never had an issue with sharpness on my copy of the non-Art 30mm. I will say that corner sharpness is generally not a priority for me, and I also think sharpness is way overrated especially on gear forums. I have used the Nikkor 35mm a little and the Sigma 30mm a lot, and I would pay the extra $120 for the Sigma. I liked shooting at wide apertures so the extra speed is of value to me. The Sigma has nice OOF rendering too, which I like for people shots. The Nikkor is a bit more compact. The Sigma is kind of a chunk, but it matches really well to a D300. Not too long, just sort of fat and heavy. </p>

<p>Agree with David Scott's Sigma 30mm recommendation. These should be pretty affordable on the used market (not as cheap as the 35mm Nikkor, but within about $100). The Sigma 30mm was by far my most used lens for family photos. It is fast enough to work in almost any lighting and has great character. For people photos, it really shines.</p>

<p>City flowers</p><div></div>

<p>I have replaced my split prism screens with plain screens (Mamiya M645 and Nikon FM2 and Nikon FE2). I see the utility of the prism for precision, but I prefer a clean screen for my casual snapshooting. I think I can focus much faster and make adjustments more quickly with a plain screen.</p>

<p>Thanks Tony. I was thinking flower but it also kind of looks like an ice cube! Regardless, nice color and mood.</p>

<p>Tony - very cool shot. What is this?</p>

<p>Barry - that looks to me like a big difference in WB for the bookshelf comparison shots. Both were set to Auto-WB?</p>

<blockquote> <p>This week, I'm posting a thing that only looks like the thing it is, not some other thing it sort of looks like, but which is actually a different thing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Matt - is this a brain teaser?? :)</p><div></div>

<p>Mark - off-topic advice is in abundant supply around here :)</p> <p>Nice to hear about your F4S. I had one briefly when I bought it as part of a kit. I had no need for it, and sold it. But I <em>wanted</em> to keep it just for the way it felt in hand. Very robust.</p>

<p>According to Shun, on this older thread, the issue is clearance b/w the 70-300 and the TC unit. </p> <p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bv0e</p>

<p>Jon, can you share any images to show your observations with the 28 and 35? The general take on the 35 says it has lots of spherical aberration wide open but very sharp with lots of contrast as it gets stopped down. It should be really sharp at 5.6 unless there is some problem with your copy. </p>