bill_brooks

<p>I was an early adapter to the Sigma, having already put the 35 f/1.4 Art in my kit, and have been very happy with it all along. It just takes sharp pictures all day long, hand held or tripod. Very good I/S.<br>

A number of lenses keep one wondering at the outset if purchasing was the right decision. That was not the case with this lens - I knew after processing my first batch of images that it is a winner.</p>

<p>Well, I agree that the 300 PF will probably not work best for me in as many situations as I've been able to compose shots before with a variable zoom.<br>

But I'm willing to try to make that prime lens adjustment to seek sharpness in lower light conditions that I just couldn't fully discover with the variable zooms. It so happens by luck that many of my birding subjects fall into the 300mm range. I also like to shoot around 400, so the TC-14E III teleconverter may stay on for many sessions, once I get one. Some excellent photographers I've seen are doing just so.<br>

I do wish the 80-400G copy I owned (NIB) was sharper at 400G, or I'd likely not gone this route. Who knows, I may end up back there with a 80-400G someday, time will tell.</p>

<p>Shun, I hear you loud and clear about the 80-400 G and concur; it is a great lens. Certainly the most versatile. I had a blast using it for field sports shooting (especially in good light.)<br /> I'd love to be able to keep both the 80-400G as well as the 300 PF (I think the former would remain my travel lens aside from say, the 35 Art for city walk-around) but I am content with my decision.<br /> I decided to go for the 300 PF to discipline myself on shot composition, for one. I really like to position myself as close as possible to wildlife subjects. I will working more with blinds this coming season (and perhaps this winter; owls are lurking nearby!)<br /> I will probably spring at some point for the TC-14E III as it appears people are having good experiences shooting the PF with that teleconverter to gain 420mm. (Not so much with the TC-20E III, so it seems, unfortunately.)<br /> But the main reason I gave up the long range was to get the gain in low light shooting. The bonus is that I am getting shots at f/4 and f/4.5 with wonderful bokeh, and that means a lot to me.</p>

I have had both the new 200-500

and the 300 PF. The 300 PF

remains in my kit after careful

use and comparison in the field.

 

There is a *lot* to like about

the 200-500. I purchased it to

replace my 80-400G. Okay, I

realize I'm sounding like a quick

change artist, but I carefully

decided that as much as I loved

the 80-400G, it was just

delivering satisfactory sharpness

at 400mm (or near to 400 as

well). That characteristic has

been discussed elsewhere in

forums.

 

To the point, the 200-500 *did*

deliver wonderful sharpness at

400-500 especially at f/6.3 and

tighter. I was thrilled... as

long as I was shooting in the

sunlight. Then the all too common

Minnesota gray skies returned and

the dark side (sorry) of the 200-

500 was revealed- in low light,

acuity is very elusive. More so

than a 80-400G, which handled

higher ISO settings quite

admirably given it was a variable

zoom. (I'm getting to the 300

PF).

 

Specifically, the 200-500 focused

very slowly in low light; and it

yielded many grainy and soft

focused shots, despite all

serious efforts. For me it was a

deal breaker.

 

I thought that giving up the 80-

400G was a mistake. However...

 

...in the end I realized that for

the value presented by the 200

500 I was asking too much. I

realized that if I wanted liw

light condition sharpness within

my budget that I'd better

consider 300 as my focal length.

I knew the previous versions of

this prime at f/4 were well

loved, so I purchased the 300 PF.

 

So far it has been wonderful.

Sure, the 300 PF likes sun as

much as any long lens, but it

delivers solidly sharp and

contrasting images in low light

conditions and at higher ISO very

satisfactorily. At 300mm for

sharpness it beats anything I

produced with the 80-400G or the

200-500 E, and I had sharp images

with both.

 

Along with the Sigma 1.4 Art

lenses (I have two) I've never

felt so confident and been so

happy with results as I am with

the 300 PF.

<p>Surrounding the Nikon case should be a heavy mil plastic bag for waterproofing (yes, packages can get soaked), followed by a minimum of 3 inches of medium density foam sheeting if available, or bubble wrap that has been securely taped around the Nikon case/poly. The outer box should be very heavy duty cardboard, or doubled or trebled as Shun shows.</p>

<p>I am telling you this as someone who has shipped priceless items professionally for three museums and my own business for 35 years.<br>

<br />By the way, any kind of shifting of the item(s) within the outer box is totally unacceptable.</p>

<p>I did the update on my D810. Cards working fine. The prior issue had been with my D800, and has been documented by users here and other forums.</p>

<p>Has anyone run this update to their D810? Having had a prior experience with CF card issues post update I am a bit leery, frankly.</p>

The tactile feel of quality in

your hand: not important to some,

but to others very much so. The

Sigma has it in spades. Unlike

other excellent Nikon lenses, the

24-120 feels too light and

"plastic"... downright

unsatisfactory. That alone can be

a game changer.

<p>As much as I ultimately came to love my D800, it was a difficult love affair. I wrestled with fine tuning most of the lenses I used on it, and it really only "sung" with a few... noticeably the 24-70G, 70-200 VRII and especially the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4. I sent it in to Nikon for the AF point recalibration like most owners, but that and other idiosyncrasies didn't sour me on the camera.<br /> <br /> I also knew as soon as the D800E images started posting later in 2012, that the aliasing was a truly noticeable difference. I had to work hard at technique, tuning and a bit of luck to get the keepers I was seeking, and finally got in a groove with the D800.<br /> <br /> None of this proved to be the case with the D810. For starters it transformed my 80-400 G VRII into the truly awesome sharp lens I had hoped for, and negated the focus chatter. <br /> <br /> I did fine tune a few other lenses, and yes, I'm sure the work I put into mastering the D800 helped, but I was getting virtually instant gratification in the form of high quality keepers with the new D810. <br /> <br /> Yes, I got soaked a bit selling the D800 and I can't afford to throw money around. I'm glad the guy who bought mine got a good deal on a clean D800. But I am totally satisfied with my decision to bump up to the D810. I don't allow myself to get bogged down in perfecting my set-up, but now it's all more about the sheer joy of shooting! Nikon got this camera right. </p>

<p>My Sigma 24-105 Art has been a joy to use at all FL on my D800 and now D810. The OS is instantaneous and absolutely silent. Cityscape and landscape shots on tripod at f/5.6-f/8 or so are incredibly crisp and sharply detailed.<br /> I like this lens almost as much as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, which is my King of Keepers lens. No regrets from this primarily Nikon gear owner-- the new Sigma Art line has been a total winner.<br>

<img src="/bboard/DSC_7341%20by%20birdbrooks77" alt="" /></p>

<p>I've adjusted the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 lens with the Sigma dock at 4 ranges. It's more cumbersome than shot comparisons done with AF Fine Tune in-camera, as the lens goes on and off the dock and the camera for each setting change, but it does work... and the main feature of the dock is that different ranges can be fine tuned.<br /> My shot comparisons with the D810 in-camera AF Fine Tune, both turned on and off, do not reveal any differences, most likely as I left the in-camera setting at zero (0). I'm satisfied with the shots I'm getting so far. Thanks to Michael, Ellis, Rodeo Joe and Kari for your input!</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, good question.. I would assume the lens is making adjustments as I change the settings relative to it's own mount, that would show up on whatever camera I'm using it to compare settings, and it is indeed showing the adjustments on my D810. I just don't see anyone, from Sigma on down, stating exactly how to set my selections in-camera-- Sigma just states "calibrate your lens using your normal procedure" or something close to that. Vague.<br /> I'm not convinced the Sigma dock is any better; it's certainly not more convenient than camera body tuning to the lens... but I got caught up in the Sigma dock hype, and I'm trying to get the best set up possible, whether it involves the dock or not.<br /> Could it be that my Nikon D810 would not recognize adjustments to the 35 f/1.4 Art lens in some way (even though it recognizes the lens itself and lists it in my AF Fine Tune list in the Fine tune menu)? I have to admit I haven't simply tried in-camera Fine Tuning my Sigma lens...<br /> ...Probably because I've been caught up in trying to use this Sigma dock the "right way". Whatever that is!</p>

<p>Ellis, I am thinking that is the correct way, thanks. Right now I have AF Fine Tune setting in the Set Up menu turned to "off", and the Sigma lens is behaving properly according to my dock-tune. (My current Nikon lenses aren't exhibiting the need to be fine tuned on my copy of the D810).<br>

If one of my other Nikon lenses need an on-camera fine tune, I'll just turn the on-camera AF Fine Tune setting to "on" and see what happens, following your suggestion to leave the Sigma lens set to "0". Thanks again for your input.</p>

Ellis, i think we're also talking

about separate issues... I'm

trying to determine *how to leave

my camera settings on AF tune in the set up menu*

when I am using a combination of

untuned and tuned Nikon lenses

along with Sigma lenses that have

been docked on the Sigma dock.

<p>Michael, That is indeed my concern. While I wouldn't try to fine tune my Sigma lens in-camera and also with the Sigma dock, I may have to also fine tune one or more of my Nikon lenses, and that's why I want clarification on how to best set that up when I'm also using Sigma lenses that have been dock-tuned.<br>

The question is, better to turn off the fine-tune feature in the set up menu when I have a Sigma dock-tuned lens on (more fussy) or simply add it to my tuned lens list with a "zero" setting?</p>

<p>I enjoyed the Sigma Art lenses 35 f/1.4 and the 24-105 on my D800 without any fine tuning. I am now shooting a new D810, and am in the process of fine tuning the 35 f/1.4 with my Sigma dock. Despite much searching incl. the Sigma site, I am in need of answers to a few basic questions and would appreciate any help:<br>

--So far I have no need to fine tune any other lenses, but if so, should I make sure that "AF fine-tune (On-Off)" is turned to "Off" in the D810 set-up menu, or does that not matter?<br>

--Perhaps having that setting to "On" with a setting of 0 (zero) on the D810 would pre-empt any bolloxing up of my dock settings? If I need to fine tune other lenses it would be nice to not have to remember to change that setting every time I pop lenses off and on...<br>

By the way I am finding the 35 f/1.4 to front-focus just a bit. I realize Sigma may update the firmware for the D810, but not the case so far.<br>

Also worth noting as an aside is that the Nikon 80-400 G, a lens I love but that had a bit of "personality" on the D800 as far as locking up focus, is doing so like a champ on the D810. I'm getting sharper long range images, and no fine tuning for that lens.</p>

 

<p>I picked up the very first D800 at my brick and mortar store in the Twin Cities-- I had been #1 on a waiting list since before it was officially announced by 6 months.<br>

All of the OP's listed concerns were addressed in the early months after purchase:<br>

--I have a fast computer so file storage and download speed have not been an issue.<br>

--Bought the fastest CF and SD cards out there for faster processing of downloads.<br>

--Sent it to El Segundo for the left focus fix and it came back with that fixed as well as AF fine tuning recalibrated so all my Nikon glass could be set back to zero.<br>

--Discipline on technique must be high; I accepted that challenge before I bought the camera. I agree with Shun about the D800 keeper rate vs. fast fps bodies like the D4; it's very high.<br>

--Overall I am very happy after two years that I bought a Nikon D800. It has been a solid and trusty workhorse and I still am amazed by its capabilities.<br>

It has made me a better photographer as well, for what that's worth-- to me, a ton.</p>

<p>Well, at first I balked at spending 82 grand.. but then I realized only 16 of the 20 lenses were pictured! :-)</p>

<p>The old "don't fix what works question", reposed: I've had varying degrees of success with high quality lenses on my D800, which has had the AF left sensor fix, been fine tuned with all lenses, etc.<br /> That said the best performance of any lens I own on the D800 is the Sigma 35 f/1.4. It's been incredible, and I'm wondering if applying L1.009 might negatively affect non-Nikon/ Nikkor lenses. Anyone with that combo and the update, working fine?</p>

<p>JDM, just saw your post, as I was posting, about the Sharpie paint pen.. now that sounds good, I need to add that to my arsenal!<br>

Agree with your point as well about scars.. especially if one wants to sell the camera, touch ups should be disclosed but people go more by the images they see with sell postings.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Here's my 2 bits' worth, as a museum conservationist/fabricator. We come up against these types of touch ups a lot... If your finger feels raised (snaggy) areas on the marred surface, they can be flattened out a bit with a *light* touch using a fine modeler's or jeweler's file. Even a nail file in a pinch. This will help the paint adhere as well, but don't file down to the surface as you do not want to remove any more Nikon black.<br>

I would avoid a Sharpie. That will impart a bluish/purplish tinge and will not match the matte black of the Nikon case. Black Rustoleum (or any oil/alkyd base paint) in a matte or eggshell base will work. The key is to first dab a little primer (also oil base) on first and let that dry before top coating with the black. That should be enough to make the marred area disappear.</p>

I'm hoping DSLR doesn't go away anytime

soon, as mirrorless etc. would be so much

less satisfying on many levels. Heck, having

the feel in hand of a balanced camera and

glass, and solid heft is almost reason enough

alone!

 

But I'm reminded of a true story regarding the

manufacturers mindset... For golf balls!

Golfers loved the wound balls for lots of good

reasons, but they cost more to make than

cast/extruded solid balls, so the hype began,

the ad campaigns bombarded us, and

proof,wound balls went extinct. Now golfers

pay more for cheaply made, less dynamic golf

balls! (Me included.)

 

With all the parts necessary to make a great

DSLR, it would seem that eventually the

camera manufacturers would love to pull off

the same trick as Acushnet, etc.

<p>Very well written, Jacques.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you may add or amend; what are your thoughts about the oft-repeated lament (Thom Hogan, etc.) about the D800 and the changes making trap-focus unattainable? Many thanks!</p>

<p>(P.S., Shun, I hope I'm not being repetitive with this request; I know there are some threads specifically addressing it, so I'm asking Jacques to add it to his linked post. --Bill)</p>

<p>I love the hand-held balance of my gripped D800 with the 24-70 f/2.8G ED or 70-200 f/2.8 G ED VRII lens. It was a lot of $$$ to pay for nice balance, but that was an important side-bonus. With the IQ I am enjoying, no complaints! </p>

<p>It's a great time to be contemplating camera upgrades. The D70s holds a fond place in my heart; it was a solid performer. You will be pleased with any of the successors out there... the D7000 does have the capability and features as mentioned by Derek to justify the additional cost, and the high IQ jump will be huge as well. The D7000 is a bit more difficult to master, but then all the newer high megapixel cameras are. Mastering the D800 feels like grinding through a PhD program compared to all predecessors! </p>