simon_hickie2

<p>You need to focus on the person in the centre. I'd expect the lens to have minimal field curvature. The persons at the edge of the image will still be in focus despite being further from the camera than the centre person - it's a characteristic of how rectilinear lenses work. If you focus on a person at the end and recompose, I would expect the whole group to be soft at f1.8.</p>

<p>I agree with Wouter - it looks like a lens problem to me. I'd try some testing at various focal lengths and other settings.</p>

<p>A decent used D300 can be had for between 500 & 600 ukp. That would be my preferred upgrade from a D100. </p>

<p>Your camera should come with appropriate RAW conversion software. My Nikon based workflow is to do as much editing as I can in Capture NX, then save as a TIFF file, do the final editing in Photoshop, save as a final TIFF file, then save as a JPEG for printing.</p>

<p>Hi. One issue I find with scanning B&W 35mm negatives (Nikon 5000 scanner) is dust management. B&W film does not respond to infrared dust removal, unlike colour prints & slides. I scan using vuescan (usually 2 or 3 passes plus multiexposure) and edit in photoshop. One key benefit of good old silver halide is that your negatives should outlast you, whatever your age. Not necessarily a stairway to heaven, but hopefully not a heartbreaker (sorry, couldn't resist it).</p>

<p>I have a D300 and now also a refurbished D5000. The D5000 goes everywhere with me, while the D300 is reserved for things like wedding receptions, gigs etc. I like the weight of the D5K, with the D7k being just a little heavier. The best camera is always going to be the one you have with you.</p>

<p>I have a D300. For weddings, I find exposure to be reliable and focusing rapid. Key controls fall easily to hand. It also has better weather sealing than the D90 - not all weddings are in the dry. If you do plan to shoot weddings for money, you really need a second body - plus lens backup and two flashes etc.</p>

<p>Like Elliot, I would try the lens on the new body first - then try printing a1 12 x 16 inches to see how it looks. I sold my 18-200 and bought the 16-85. I find the latter to be much sharper, but f5.6 is limiting at 85mm.</p>

<p>The field of view aspect may need some clarification. The 35mm f1.8 on a DX body will have a horizontal field of view of 37.8* a vertical field of view of 25.8* and a diagonal FOV of 44.8*. 50mm will give you 27*, 18.2* and 32.2* respectively. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 gives you 43.6*, 29.9* and 51.4* respectively and is very close to the 'ideal' FOV for a normal lens.</p>

<p>I've been thinking this through myself and am in the process of selling off some redundant gear, with a view to upgrading something. I use a D300, but have no fast lenses. My decision is whether to change to the D7000, or spend the money on faster lenses. My conclusion is that faster lenses make the most sense, not least due to more control over depth of field. So I'm likely to invest in a Tamron 17-50mm (without built in motor) and either an 85mm f1.8 or Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. </p>

<p>Hand-held, sports and weather related photography suggests decent higher ISO performance and good AF speed. You might also want to consider dynamic range issues, repending on the type of lighting for your weather picture (e.g. if large contrasts in light, then more dynamic range is needed). A member at my camera club still uses a D50 (6 megapixels) and produces some fine images. One can pick up a good one for under £150 in the UK (not sure about USA) which would leave you free to concentrate on getting some fast lenses. The Tamron 17-50mm without built-in motor would be a good start (unless you then plan to upgrade to a motorless body). The Nikon 70-300mm with VR would then give you the reach for sports and fast AF. </p>

<p>Hi Dawn</p>

<p>I also noticed that one of your shots was at f29. With the 55-200mm, optimum sharpness is going to be around f8 to f11 at the long end - and you could get that ISO down too. I know the following advice is going against everything I've done for the past 25+ years (!) but it might be a good idea to try practicing with manual exposure. Turn AUTO ISO off too if it's on. Take a look at Fred Parker's guide to exposure without using a light meter (I've just rediscovered this) http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm . When I started using a camera, it was manual everything and I used the guide on film packets to judge exposure using slide film. I wasted a lot of film! But I learned that here in the UK in summer, I could set the camera for f8 and 1/125th second with ISO 100 film and typically only have to adjust exposure by up to two stops in either direction (e.g. f5.6 for open shade, f11 for hazy sun with some shadows etc.).</p>

<p>This afternoon, as an experiment, I shot a picture using manual exposure using what I remembered from over 30 years ago and completely ignoring the meter - very cloudy day, early afternoon, late winter. I guesstimated ISO 200, 1/125th f5.6. I was a stop underexposed. ISO 200, 1/100th @f4.5 did the trick with a nicely distributed histogram.</p>

<p>If you can learn to judge light (using Fred Parker's guide + experience) you can begin to ignore your meter readings and use shutter speeds, apertures and ISO settings creatively to give you the effects you want. As for me, I've just set my D300 to Manual Exposure, ISO 200, AUTO ISO OFF and I've set myself the task of trying to understand light once more.</p>

<p>I take the view that hard disk space is cheap - images are priceless. Therefore, I would stick with the RAW plus JPEG option. You can delete your 'mistakes' and experiments. My first DSLR was a D50 and I had very limited memory card capability and to this day regret not having RAW versions of some of my early JPEG files (e.g. for easier adjustment of white balance or recovery of lost highlights and shadows).</p>

<p>Lex, I know the feeling. I've been looking at telephoto options and agonising over the three Nikon contenders in the low to mid price bracket. In the end, my dodgy back plus limited funds and some useful price cuts made the new 55-300mm my final choice. On another day it could have been either of the other two options. I think my chiropractor approved of the weight saving over the 70-300mm.</p>

<p>Thanks to those who offered their advice. I decided in the end to go for the 55-300mm for various reasons. The UK pricing of the options (new UK stock) was: 55-200 £179; 55-300 £229; 70-300 £385. The 55-300 benefits from a metal mount, rear rubber gasket, VR2 and an extra 100mm over and above the 55-200 for a little extra outlay. Whilst I would have liked the 70-300, the price difference buys me a 35mm f1.8 and the extra weight of the 70-300 was just a little too much for my needs. I have only taken a handful of shots, but I find the zoom action to be smooth to 200mm with a little stickiness there - not a big deal IMO. Focusing is steady - not spectacularly fast, but it locks on reliably with minimal twitching even in pretty gloomy light. VR can take a while to kick in - especially at the long end, but it's very obvious when it does.</p>

<p>I'll post a user review when I've had more time with the lens and some decent weather and also compare it with where it overlaps with my 16-85mm and old 70-210mm (non D f4-5.6) lenses.</p>

<p>I use a bit of software called Renamer. I rename all my files to the following format: Date-Time-Camera-original image number where camera = the camera I used (e.g. D300). I prefix the image number with a 0 for images 0 to 9999 and with a 1 for the next set of 9999 and so on. So my file name ends up something like 2011.02.11-17.45-D300-01234. Initial uploads go in a folder called UPLOAD where they are renamed as a batch. Then JPEGS are transferred into a JPEG folder, RAW files into a RAW folder, and edited images into a folder called EDITED - all organised by month and year. I know it all sounds a bit anal, but it works for me.</p>

<p>I think it's called paralysis by analysis. OTOH I too like to make logical decisions based on available evidence. I had the 18-70mm. It was fine overall, but no VR. I had the Tamron 17-50mm with built in motor. IQ was excellent but AF was twitchy. I had the 18-200mm, but it was hopeless at the telephoto end. I have the 16-85mm VR. I have less creative control over DOF than with the 17-50mm, but VR and the extra focal length suits my needs. If you need VR, get the 16-85mm. If you want DOF control and best IQ consider the Tamron 17-50mm. If you really can't decide, get a 18-70mm second hand; try it and sell it if it's not what you need.</p>

<p>Many thanks for the replies. Sounds like the version without motor is the one to go for. I found the main problem with the micro-motor version was that once it got near the focus point (which it did quite quickly), it then seemed to spend ages making very small movements before finally locking focus. In comparison, I've just bought the Nikon 55-300 VR. It's allegedly slow to AF, but I have found it to be perfectly adequate and it's not twitchy.</p>

<p>I used to have a Tamron 17-50mm with the built in motor, but sold it due to slow and twitchy AF despite the excellent IQ. Does anybody have experience of the version without the motor particularly with respect to AF speed? I would be using it on D300 / D7000 class bodies. I miss the ability to shoot at wider apertures for more creative effects.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your replies. Sounds like my copy is a bit of a lemon. (It was in effect 'free' when I bought an F601 second hand several years ago). The front and rear elements are clear and I see no significant internal dust. Sharpness is fine around f5.6, so it could be a coatings problem.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF (not the D version). On the D300 a purple spot appears from f8 onwards even in overcast conditions regardless of whether I use a hood or filter or not. I've seen references to this elsewhere on the site. The spot becomes stronger at f11 and again at f16. I understand this is as a result of light bouncing between the sensor and the rear element. My copy is also only really usable from around f2.8 due to blacks tending to appear purple. So basically I have a lens that only works between f2.8 and f5.6. My question is whether the 'D' version or the f1.4 version suffers less from either of these characteristics.</p>

<p>Interesting. Here in the UK, the D90 body only is at the lowest price I have ever seen - £524 from Amazon (although I am never convinced that they always sell UK stock). *bay prices are around the £400-£450 mark - used and with little in the way of guarantee. The D300s is still stubbornly around the £1000 mark (more than I paid for my D300 over 2 years ago). The D7000 can now be had for £930 (UK stock) and prices are falling slowly (seems to be around £15 per month on average).</p>

<p>As for me, I'm hanging on to the D300 for a while, but will probably migrate to the D7000 in the Autumn to save a little weight - when you have a dodgy back, even 140g can make a difference.</p>

<p>I've owned, used and evaluated the Tamron 17-50mm, Nikon 18-70mm, Nikon 18-200mm and Nikon 16-85mm. Of these, the only one I have kept is the 16-85mm. The Tamron's focusing was slow and twitchy on the D300, but IQ was excellent. The 18-200mm was hopeless above 70mm. The 18-70 had decent sharpness and focusing but no VR (needed really at 70mm in lowish light). The 16-85mm is excellent overall - good focus speed, sharp at all focal lengths, effective VR, metal lens mount. The slight minus is f5.6 at the long end. I've yet to try the 18-105mm, but believe from what I read that it is decent but with a plastic mount and some corner softness. Of the 'kit lenses' the 18-105mm would seem to be the one to go for as part of a bundle - at the right price.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies so far. I do have an old push-pull Nikon 70-210mm AF zoom (not the D version unfortunately), but really do need the VR - hence the alternatives listed. The 70-210 has painfully slow focusing which suggests I might find the 55-200 or 55-300 too slow as well, but by how much I don't know. I owned one of the old 70-210mm constant F4 lenses for a while too, but that had the same slow focusing. I've even considered trading the D300 down to a D90 for weight purposes, but love the D300 handling and metering accuracy. Sounds like some more trips to the chiropractor and a 70-300mm is the best option.</p>

<p>I currently use a D300 with 16-85mm lens. I would like to add some telephoto capability for architecture detail / landscape detail and candid street / documentary photography. I tend not to do sports or nature photography. Due to back problems I would like to minimise additional weight and avoid using a tripod (a monopod is an option - they give me about an extra stop). In the UK, I can source the following Nikon lenses: new 55-200 VR @ £170, used c. £120 no guarantee; new 55-300 VR @ £229 full Nikon UK guarantee; used 70-300 @ £299 with 6 month guarantee. Off brand, there is also the new Tamron 70-300MM VC to consider at around £355 (the Nikon equivalent is around £390). I'd like to keep the budget below £300 if possible.</p>

<p>I either project images at 1400x1050, or print to 15x10 or 16 x 12 inches. For what it's worth, I was dissatisfied with the telephoto performance of my 18-200mm Nikon lens, but find that the 16-85mm gives me the kind of image quality I am looking for, albeit with limited DOF control. Opinions and advice would be most welcome.</p>