richard_barron

<p>I used the 85mm f/2.0 Nikkor for years, and can't say enough good things about it. Sharp, smooth to focus, lightweight, fun lens to shoot. I sold it in 2004 and sometimes think I want to get another one.</p> <p><br /><br /><img src="http://www.richardbarron.net/test/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/abby-front-yard-01a.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>This might be 10% off-topic, but I want to add that despite the fact that I <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2004/10/30/the-ring-october-2004/">got married at Arches National Park</a>, I am much more impressed with Canyonlands. I would urge you to spend more time and effort there. The tourists are far fewer and the photo ops are virtually unlimited, particularly the farther you are willing to hike.<br> Back on topic, in my black-and-white film days, I found I liked the deep orange better than red - better separation of tones in the stones while retaining the powerful rendition of the sky.</p>

<p>I shot a bunch in New Mexico <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2014/03/31/my-two-cents-march-2014/">in March</a> and ended up making quite a few black-and-whites. I felt my conversions were more successful using the channel mixer instead of the black-and-white dialog. The channel mixer introduced noticeably fewer artifacts and gave me the tonal values I wanted, often using the orange or red filter preset as a starting point.</p> <p><img src="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ghost-ranch-05g.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="432" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>the 400 seems to miss out on the usual 5.6 sweet spot</p> </blockquote> <p>FWIW, I find that my 400mm is sharpest wide open, and really suffers if you stop down at all, even with the TC-14.<br> http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2010/08/29/a-sweet-piece-of-glass/</p>

<p>>>although I'm not sure a D700 is a landscape camera...<<<br> <br> I was thinking of a well-used bargain D700 as a gateway into FX.</p>

<p>I know this remark might not be popular with photo.netters, but personally, I am bored by more wildlife imagery. I know what a bear looks like. I don't need to see another mug shot of one.</p> <p>Rich, regarding your comment, "plan on going FX in the future and don't want to married to DX lenses," I would add that going to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons is very exciting prospect, and not something you can do three times a year. Consider pulling the FX trigger now, if only something like a well-used D700.</p> <p>With that said, as a professional who shoots two or three cameras at the same time with big glass on all of them, when I travel, I like to lighten my load and have fun. Since you have a D7100, which I can tell you is outstanding, you might consider one of Nikon's superzooms. I partnered my D7100 with the newest 18-200mm plus a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, and I didn't feel like there were any gaps. I was able to express myself very well with that combination.</p> <p>Nikon offers an 18-300mm for almost twice the price, and I don't think it's worth it.</p> <p>If you really, really feel like wildlife photography is at the center of your goals, you need to rent a 600mm.</p> <p>You are welcome to check out my March trip shot with the 18-200mm and the 10-17mm fisheye here... http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2014/03/31/my-two-cents-march-2014/</p> <p>My assessment of the 18-200mm here... http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/04/07/the-long-and-the-short-of-it-superzooms/</p>

<p>Regarding the request for "extremely close up" images, just for reference purposes, here is a penny photographed with a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro locked to its closest focus stop, uncropped on a D7100...<br> <br> <br> <img src="http://richardbarron.net/test/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/coins-close-limit-tokina01a.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="432" /><br> <br> </p>