John Di Leo

Am I doing something wrong that produces this? I am talking about the halo around the trees in the distance. I have played with various switches in LR, going from max to min and it remains--incl sharpness, texture, sat, defringe, spot fix, etc. Is it just physics, ie a refraction pattern in the lens (Nikon 20/2.8 Ai on d810) or is it something I am doing in lightroom? This was shot in Granada, Spain and the light was very harsh. This is a 1:1 screen capture. Any help appreciated and TIA

re redundancy...mostly weight considerations, the 20 and the 35 weigh less than the 16-35, especially if only one is used and the other stays in wife's purse...8) We were at the AlHambra today in Granada and the 20 stayed on the whole time, as at the AlCazar in Seville. This is a bit of a business trip, shooting some antique chairs for research and for that the 16-35 was practical. Yes, there is redundancy, but with a purpose. On my motorcycle trips I take the 16-35 and the 24-70, leaving the primes at home.

The philosophy of what you say has validity. When I only have one or two lenses with me, it quickly happens that I start thinking in those two lenses' formats. Tonight I went out with only 20, and thinking "in 20" guides my shots. Yes, the 16-35 would have some appeal, but it also has the drawback of size and weight. Now, with only one lens, and having to rely on megapixels for cropping, means that focus MUST be critical,I have to get the best shot I can. Of course that should always be done, but it's even more critical with a lens like the 20 with its potential for distortion and for me that must be remembered. It kind of slows me down, but not significantly.

Just an observation after 2 weeks in Barcelona, Zaragosa, Madrid, Toledo, Seville. OBV ymmy. I brought (all Nikon, D810 full frame) a 24-70, 16-35, 35/1.8, 20/2.8 AI and a 55/3.5 micro. The order that they are being used is 20---by far 35 16-35 55 24-70 The narrow streets and cathedrals are made for wide angle, and I am shooting a LOT in portrait. I am surprised by the little use of my go-to 24-70. I am not shooting a lot of landscapes and that is contributory. I sure am glad I brought the 20 though. I also bought a Sony Rx 100 mk2 that has not left the camera bag.

some followup... In Madrid now and the Benro is performing well. The more I use it the more familiar I am with the setup. It is very sturdy for use with a d810 with a 35 afs G 1.8, the 16-35 f/4 in landscape mode. When used in portrait, which I've only used a few times, I have to play with the ball head setting a bit because the weight of the camera/lens hanging to the side tends to sag (not drift) a smidge, so to compensate I set it a bit higher and let it sag down...I'm talking mm if that much. It's not a big deal. Landscape is not a problem. The weight is not a problem either. The carrying case is actually functional and the straps can be used as a back pack. I've used it now 5+ times and every time I think I am glad I got it.

So, doing a test drive on the weight. Nikon 35, 55 macro, 24-70, 20 Ai, 16-35/4 d810, tripod, beanbag, in the backpack is about <14#. Doable, I think. And I likely won't be carrying all that on the shoot. And I have people with me that I might "burden' to carry the Benro. Right, Deiter, on the cost vs weight vs Gitzo. There are compromises to be made, and being very careful with camera on tripod for steadiness is a big part of the equation. I looked at the Sirui_s, but they did not fold up compact enough, and the center column was problematic on the less expensive one. An unmentioned usage of this tripod will be carrying it on motorcycle trips and to fit in a side case requires <15". I kept looking over the same selections and new suggestions and the specs of the Benro were always the basis of comparison. When I have it set up it seems pretty stable, esp with delayed shutter. Height is good too. 3.4# is 3.4# and the cost increase to carbon fiber to shave a pound or for improved damping was not worth it to me.

It arrived today. It seems pretty solid, the skinniest legs are thicker than I thought they'd be. Because of the folding design, the implementation is not as straightforward as my Bogen, but nothing to complain about. 3.4# is heavier than I thought it'd be, but going to carbon fiber would shave only a lb. That pound may be critical, but after playing with it for a bit, I am not tempted. It packs nicely.

OK, this is decidedly low tech, but if you could find some thick flat rubber bands to wrap in the groove, that would work. I found a blue, about 3/8 " wide flat rubber band that I put on the roiginal focusing grip ring of my 70-200. I can now by feel locate the fine focus and not turn the focal length by mistake, without removing my eye from the viewfinder. I know, I know, sounds like a Beverly Hillbillies solution, but it works fine and the price was right. Yes, I suppose I shouldn't own the 70-200 if I get confused by the rings, but I do, and this works. You could even find a bicycle inner tube and cut it to fit---and they are black.

BTW, I fretted over this over the past few days, and found myself keep coming back to the Benro. It was like I was trying to look for its spec to fail, and they just didn't. I ordered one and it should be coming in a few days. Fingers crossed.

Gotta chime in in homage to the 50 f2. I got one as a Christmas present from my father, along with a Photomic Tn, in 1968. It has a beautiful, almost painterly look. It is the H series and I will never part with it. Years ago I was having it cleaned at KEH and they converted it to Ai for a few dollars. I will never part with it because of the images it produces and because of its focal length. Still using a lens over 50 years old. The f2 doesn't stop me using it on my d810. That's why God created higher ISOs.

Thanks, Andrew, appreciate your experience. As I said, I will be in a controlled setting, no wind or rocks, and I could hang my backpack on the hook. Re the museums and tripods...I am being told that we will have special admission that will allow tripods...if not, I guess I'll be shooting higher ISOs. Spindly legs seems to be the norm, though the Benro's are thicker than others...I've looked at that, still your point is well taken. If I wanted to slouch over more, I could just not extend the lowest sections. I will be taking a bean bag--poor man's tripod. My original plan was a big gorillapod and the bean bag, but that requires something to rest it upon and that may not be easily achieved. I will look at the Velbon though...thanks very much for the insights

Resurrecting this thread as push is coming to shove tripod wise. No broken hip, but now 73, ugh, and have been looking on the lower end price wise. I weighed my d810 with the 70-200 attached (the maximum I would use) and it comes in at around 6 lbs. Is there any rule of thumb on weight of camera vs a tripod's "load capacity?" I have a Bogen 3011 for non traveling work, I am happy with it, but it is bulky and heavy. I need something now to use on an upcoming trip to Spain photographing antique chairs in both shops and museums. My setup will be the 810 and a Nikon 35 prime or Nikon 55 macro or Nikon 16-35/4. I may use my Nikon 20, but whatever I use it will 1) not be particularly heavy...possibly 5lbs or less 2) in a controlled protected environment, ie not on a Pennsylvania trail or South Texas wetlands I am a bit vertically challenged at 5'7.5" on a long day, and I don't mind bending over a bit to look through the viewfinder or live view focus. I will be using a delayed shutter on tripod shots most likely. Lightness is important but not most important. Aluminum would be fine. I want something sturdy enough for the above setup, something under $150, and that collapses down to <15". The one that is catching my eye is the Benro Tripster Series 1and it seems to tick most boxes. Benro Tripster Travel Tripod (1 Series, Black, Aluminum) Advice appreciated, especially any owners of the Benro which has very good reviews online. TIA

transit of Venus

Fan Tan Alley, Chinatown, Victoria, BC

Clark Valley from Chief Joseph Highway, Wyoming, USA