david_r._edan

You're absolutely right about the overall look and what not up until you run into some "technical" photography, especially in the commercial fields, where you're expected to deliver images that are as sharp as possible in each and every area of the frame. Your guy may like the "look" of the lens or how the zoom feels but if you read my posts you'll see that I did say that a lens is so much more than its potential resolving power. However, this is not what it's about. I don't give a rat's ass about what some guy says about a lens until I see the PICTURES. And that's exactly what Bryan does with his site.. You say that the pictures can't be right? I beg to differ because I've tested some of those lenses myself and saw the same things. And BTW, he uses Live View to focus and he does those tests for a living. You're really gonna say that the focus must be off? Thedigitalpicture is NOT popular with the Nikon die-hards because often the truth is hard to swallow. In some ways It's like giving up a religion. And as for me... Well, let's just say that one morning I woke up and smelled the roses and I ain't never looking back. But if the love for your Nikkor lenses is strong - great! Keep enjoying them. Each and every Nikon glass that you have - there's not another one like it. So, if you love the "look" - stick to it. I was talking only about image sharpness, and trust me, those pictures are dead-on. To each is own, I guess, and it's so true.

Yep, those 600/4 Nikonians are pretty much stuck with what they've got, so what good would it do to complain? Hmmm.. I wonder who made it so that Canon bodies can accept Nikkor glass (with an adapter) but not the other way around... Nikon are busy with all those exciting mirrorless projects and I say: Great! Mirrorless is the future, after all... They should free up the resources they've got tied up trying to push out all that new, mediocre glass which nowadays is hardly up to par with the Sigmas, Tamron's and probably others. They've got a loyal following and that is the only thing that they have going for them. They cannot compete with the prices of the lenses from their competitors, and, now, increasingly more often, not even with the image quality. Their vintage glass has some appeal for portraiture or other amateur use but it has no place with the big boys of today. The more simple, low-count element lenses may have great tonal rendition but they fall way short when it comes to image sharpness, especially closer to the corners. Moreover, the old designs do not account for the fact that the image plane is now actually a CMOS sensor which is much more reflective than the emulsion side of film. There are no appropriate coatings in place on the rear elements, which often leads to severe ghosting in certain situation and/or an overall loss of contrast. ANY "vintage" glass may be appealing to the amateurish hipster-wannabes but put it in a tough lighting situation and it's got nothing on the contemporary designs and quality. So, if what you do with your Nikon is taking photos of your kid - get yourself an old, beat-up 80's Nikkor for 20 bucks and go yap about the bokeh on facebook. But maybe Nikon WILL pick up the slack, so, I might not write them off just yet. However, I'm not holding my breath for their update of the old primes. Plus, I think that zooms are in a much higher demand today, mostly because they've just gotten so good. Mediocre sharpness of the older zooms aside, I remember the times when having a constant f/2.8 aperture was something to brag about. Today it is the norm. *As a side note: I don't read any reviews until I see the pictures for myself, the kind that can really tell me A LOT about the actual picture quality.

The signal from the Canon lenses may be processed differently from what gets out of the Nikon bodies. That should be of no concern when comparing between similar Sigma and Tamron glass and also when deciding between two Nikkor lenses, for example. There has to be a judgement call on the user's part somewhere but this site has put a lot of stuff into perspective for me. Having said that, image sharpness is where it all begins yet it is only the beginning. Overall picture quality goes far beyond the resolving power of the glass. Also, the properties and function/functionality of the lens are a considerable part of the equation. Throw in the cost and you've got yourself a hell of a decision to make. Even if money is no object, there are only so many lenses that you carry with you. But I'll just go ahead and say it: Nikkor glass is over-rated. It used to be way the hell up there but not anymore, not for a long time. IMO Nikon should stop producing glass altogether and concentrate on the awesome camera bodies. The train has left a long time ago and they got stuck behind at the station with their d***s in their hands. A Nikon shooter of 18+ years I feel betrayed, especially given those price tags... Anyone's entitled to their own, different opinion about which I would not care all that much.

Enjoy. This site has all already saved me personally $$$$ by keeping me from buying some real sh**.

Bryan is all about Canon. All the Sigmas and Tamrons he tests with the Canon bodies For the Nikkors he's just got no choice but to break out a D810 or something along those lines. So, to be fair, comparing Tamrons and Sigmas, for instance, would be more scientifically sound but, at any rate, whatever you compared on there, you should get a pretty good idea of where you're standing with regards to image sharpness. Brayan's got a detailed process of how he shoots and processes his tests. I remember reading it a long time ago and going: Yep, that's the way I'd do it myself. I doubt any post-corrections are involved. So, the softness you're seeing with the Nikkor 70-200 at F2.8 is due to the fact that it sucks wide-open at 200mm, as does the Tamron. They pretty much, all do. The only ~200mm zooms that do not suck wide-open are the cine, $$$,$$$ kind. I personally don't care about any of that and even if I was given a 200mm lens that was tack-sharp wide-open (for free) I would still stop it down to at least F8. Shooting my panoramas I almost always require the DOF and I just can't have the kind of vignetting that you normally get with wide apertures. I do use custom made flat-fields to deal with it but the less vignetting I have to begin with - the better off I am with regards to stitching. You want to see something "soft" at wide-open? Well, take a look at this: Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality I can attest that I got the same sh** when I tested this lens myself, which was a long time ago... Kinda puts the 70-200 Nikkor's "softness" into perspective. I just had to... Here's the 50/1.8D up against a Zeiss Otus, at F/1.4 too: Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality Life's not fair....

Yeah, man, as sharpness goes it's pretty close to the 24-70 Tamron. Take a look for yourself but read my previous post first. Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality Check them both out at different focal lengths. I would pick the Tamron just for the fact that the zoom and focus rings rotate same as Nikon but you may have other priorities.

So, yeah... I haven't been all too pleased with Nikon myself, especially in the light of what's been coming out from 3rd-party makers. One major thing that Tamron lenses have going for them is the direction of the zoom and focus rings, which matches Nikon's. For a manual-focus shooter (not myself), this should matter even more because of the arrows in the viewfinder. But this is just the icing on the cake. Underneath, the picture is not always so pretty (those damn puns)... I have a Nikon D800, the latest Tamron 70-200 and the 24-70, so I thought I should say here a few things. If you buy any of the latest Tamron's lenses prepare to also get their Tap-in console and spend a whole lot of time calibrating the focus. And even then I don't think that you will ever reach a point where you'll be completely happy, because the focus is also not very consistent, especially on the 24-70. It's not "way outta wack" but it feels like it could have been made with a little less play. BTW, I think that the D800 is partly to blame for this. Anyway, out of the box, the focus on both those lenses was optimized for infinity. For any close-up work you WILL need to do some calibrating and I seriously doubt that sending in any of those lenses for servicing will do you much good in that department. I lucked out because I always focus via Live View, at least with those 2 lenses, so it's not an issue for me. With the 70-200 I shoot only stitched panoramas (on a tripod, naturally) and with the 24-70 I mostly shoot street views (handheld). In that kind of scenarios, focusing via LV will always get you more accurate and consistent focus than even the most accurately calibrated viewfinder focus. And trust me, out of the box - it is BAD. To the other issue, which is the vignetting on the 24-70: I don't know what those guys at Tamron were smoking but when I looked at the first test shots I had a "WTF" moment. It's seriously bad, man. Vignetting is something that each and every lens has, it's just light fall-off, it's physics. In this case, however, "vignetting" means: obstructed view / obscured corners due to bad design. The hard data goes like this: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD G2: No filter, some vignetting but passable: 24mm: F5; 35mm: F4; 50mm: F4; 70mm: F5.6 No filter, no obscured corners: 24mm:F8: 35mm; F5.6: 50mm: F5.6; 70mm: F8 Regular (not thin) 82mm filter, some vignetting but passable: 24mm: F8; 35mm: F6.3; 50mm: F4.5; 70mm:F5.6 Same filter, no obscured corners: 24mm: F11; 35mm: F8; 50mm: F5.6, 70mm: F8 I don't shoot at the wide apertures anyway, so to me it's not an issue at all . To anyone who does, it should be a major concern. The VC, also isn't all-too-fantastic. I've got fairly steady hands but I'm no brain surgeon, with you it may be different but prepare to be shooting at the following lowest shutter speeds with your D800: Good chance of full resolving power: 24mm: 1/60; 35mm: 1/125; 50mm: 1/125; 70mm: 1/160 Fair chance of full resolving power: 24mm: 1/50; 35mm: 1/60; 50mm: 1/60; 70mm: 1/90 Those are not scientific experiments by any means but rather just practical tests, bearing practical results. It is quite possible, of course, to get very crisp images at shutter speeds that are much lower, but, generally, they would be the exception, not the rule. When pressed for light, I often take a whole bunch of pictures and pick the sharpest one. I can do this because, usually, buildings aren't going anywhere, so for "people" photography, this won't work. The VC on the 70-200 is much better IMO. For example: at the same 70mm, in my tests I was able to always get tack-sharp pictures at 1/60 and have a fair chance at getting the same down to 1/30. So..... go figure. At any rate, there are special settings on the 24-70 for the VC that are only accessible via the USB console. For the 70-200 there are even more "hidden gems". So, after all that, am I still glad I bought this lens? HELL YEAH! Why? Because this: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality Take a gander at the 24-70 Tamron put up against the newest 24-70 Nikkor. Just hover the mouse above the picture to see the Nikkor and move it away to see the Tamron again. Feel free to change the apertures and focal lengths but trust me, the pictures will tell the same story. Here's the 24-70 Tamron lined up against the "awesome" Nikkor 50/1.8D prime: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality Kinda makes you think, huh? And as a bonus: here is the 70-200 Tamron compared to the 70-200 Nikkor FL: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality There's a whole bunch of other lenses that you can compare on this site and if you haven't heard about it: you're welcome! Take care.

The key-word there being "sell" ;) Anyways, LDR monitor quality aside, I wouldn't make my panoramas viewable online for the sole purpose of mildly entertaining a very niche spectrum of photo-enthusiasts. Regular people just don't care about any of this and with so many photos floating around it's just: Who cares?, you know? My scenics are not about the high pixel count or the dynamic range but it is a big part of it and getting some d-bag hipster to tap on a thumbnail on his iPhone doesn't do it for me. Unless I can directly benefit from the fact, I won't just throw my work out there for the sake of getting some feedback (maybe). I used to post an occasional photo back when I was still learning the craft, but eventually I have reached a point where I didn't feel that I needed any "likes" or "thumbs up" or even "constructive criticism", I just don't care about any of that anymore. I am not very social, I don't have a facebook account or even a smart phone. Not stuck in the eighties, just don't like all the clutter. But even the closest members of my family have not seen 10% of what I consider to be my best work. It is more or less on a need-to-see basis. I won't display random scenics to any kind of people unless it concerns them in a way that I think may be of interest beyond the actual image. Having said that, people who I think might give me money do get to see what I try to sell to them, and only what I try to sell to them. Hope I'm not coming off as one cold prick, it's just the world of photography and visual arts in general is not what it used to be. There's so much stuff that everyone can see these days, and for free too, that people just don't care and neither do I. "Going public" with some of my work is something that I will probably do in the future but it would have to be done in a way that benefits me financially in a tangible way, to make it worth my while, and it is not something that I plan to do in the foreseeable future. I have so much on my plate as is. So, best of luck to you too with whichever kinda work that you do.

LOL! I knew this was coming... Sorry, man.. There's no proper platform for displaying this kind of work online. You'd have to see the huge prints in person. Different, but also very good would be: A large, 8K, HDR panel, something that even I don't have yet. I appreciate you taking interest.

You're welcome but mostly: thank YOU! And actually, I have a working kit right now. My panorama go-to lenses have always been something along the lines of 70-300 and primes in that range. More recently I've switched to carrying with me just a 70-200mm. So, I still have my perfectly working, new Tamron 70-200. I can't go above the 200mm with no TC, obviously, but like I've been saying all along, to me, those kinda focal lengths would be the exception, not the rule. I capture most my scenics not from miles away and I am not into unnecessarily-high pixel counts either. The amount of detail in my stitched panoramas seldom goes beyond the healthy level of curiosity.

"My style of photography" has a thing in common with astrophotography in that it is fairly technical. For instance, I use custom-made Flat-fields to negate the vignetting. And to remove/reduce the atmospheric wobble I pretty much use the identical approach to what you describe, which is, basically: Take a bunch of photos and "equalize" them. It is quite simple to apply this technique in Photoshop by stacking up all the frames while aligning them (automatically) on a sub-pixel level and then applying the Median algorithm to the whole stack. Though simple enough in concept, this technique is very time-consuming at capture, which is very limiting. With 4 or 5 HDR layers in a measly 8-slice panorama, going the Median route will take the frame count well into the hundreds (shooting 10 or 12 frames instead of just one)... But I guess, the most limiting thing about it is that this works well only with really fast shutter speeds, because if you slow it down, the "wobble" generates progressively more blur. At 300mm (on a tripod) my exposure times are generally in the thousands, in broad daylight, which means that I'm raising the ISO to 400, and often 800, also because I shoot mostly at f/11, sometimes at f/8 but occasionally even at f/16. With a little wind constantly, yet inconsistently pushing the lens around and literally tons of air moving non-stop between me and some distant buildings every passing second I often find myself pushing the camera's limits with the 1/8000th-second exposure times for the darkest frames in HDR sequences. It is what it is. Sometimes there's just no way around it. Luckily, the sensor noise goes away along with the wobble in post-processing. This fact is the reason that makes this technique usable to me.

I have already said it: The lens was restored to its original state prior to my coupling it the last time with the TC. And EVERYTHING works! (well, "workED" because I don't have it at the moment). I did not have to do ANYTHING to the aperture ring on the body, I merely altered a custom setting and that fixed the annoying error. The camera took pictures and auto-focused just fine! I had to set the aperture with the ring on the lens though, and the actual aperture was not recorded in the EXIF. That was the ONLY down side to this setup. Everything else worked great and the image quality was awesome! I was so HAPPY... until I tried to detach the teleconverter... Man,... what a downer.. "Just to be clear, presumably you do, at this point, have a working 420mm f/5.6, if you wedge the aperture ring on the body? Just checking you wouldn't rather have that than the component parts plus a potentially large repair bill." Again, I would not have to "wedge" anything anywhere. No mods, no hacks, that was the appeal. And the permanent 420mm "lens" IS something I have actually considered... I would have to wait and see what they'll want to charge me BUT, the truth is, right now, I can hardly come up with half a dozen scenes that I would want to try and capture with that kind of magnification. I am all about hi-res but I do not take pictures of birds, foxes or Bambies. When I shoot with a 300mm lens it is usually a distant landscape, seascape or cityscape. More often than not there's literally MILES of air between the lens and the "subject". The atmospheric distortions are a huge limitation. I have a special shooting technique that I often use but it is quite limiting in itself. I always wait for the perfect weather or something that's very close to it. The visibility has to be spectacular: little to no dust particles and the humidity has to be very low too, which calls for low temperatures . Also there's the actual wind that blows on the camera itself. I really like low-light photography, especially when photographing cities. But in low light, I can't use my technique and even the slightest breeze, or just a single gust of wind can ruin the whole panoramic sequence. It's been limiting enough with the 300mm lens but with a 420mm I am looking at only very specific and rare scenarios. That is why I just wanted to have the option of slapping on a TC onto a 300mm lens. If I am stuck with a huge repair bill I might just call it off and try to disassemble the TC myself. Best case scenario: The 300mm is fine and the TC is put back together. Worst case scenario: I destroy the TC in the process but I get my 300mm lens back, which I would much rather prefer to a full-time 420mm/5.6, manual-aperture monstrosity. Sharpness or not, F4 or not, a 300mm lens is just so much more useful to me than a 420mm... And currently there is no better alternative to the 300/4D AF-S, at least not for me. By "alternative" I mean "equal or better image quality at F/8 with less bulk and/or weight". Obviously, I must explain: I was seriously considering getting me the new 300mm PF when it just came out. Common sense told me to wait and, boy, am I glad... I guess the bottom line about it would be that, optically, it is not quite as good as my current 300mm 4D. And that's pretty much why I decided that I wasn't over-paying for the lesser quality, Chinese-made product, especially, given all the issues with the VR and what not. If you own this lens and everything works for you then you lucked out. Enjoy it. The pictures it gives are almost as good as the 300mm/4D and it weighs only half. If hand-held shooting is your style then it is likely THE 300mm lens for you. I'm all for E-apertures. In fact, I'm phasing out all my older lenses. The last one I bought was actually, the new Tamron 24-70, which also has an E-diaphragm. I'm not known for using vintage equipment, which was the major reason for my getting the newest, all-electronic, teleconverter. In fact, I will probably never buy another screwdriver-focus or mechanical-diaphragm lens, except, maybe a Medium-Format lens to be used in a tilt-shift setup for my studio work.... Man,... I really did want the 300mm PF to be a great lens. Hey, maybe Tamron will come up with one, they've been churning out new lenses like crazy lately, good ones too. I'm really excited about the new 70-210.

So, yeah, my speculation is officially confirmed. It is the aperture actuator lever on the 300 Nikkor. I went down to the store. And the dude over there, who's got over 20 years experience selling photo gear, gave this thing a couple go's and went: "Yep, it's stuck alright, must be the diaphragm actuator. " He did try to fumble with the aperture ring, as have I, at home, but obviously, it didn't help. So I'm like: We'll have to send it out, I guess. Is it covered by the warranty? And he's like: And what do you think? I'm on good terms with that dude but he did point out that the TC and that lens should never have touched each other. And indeed, in the teleconverter's manual it clearly states: "• The following lens can be attached to this product: SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 (Model A022) (as of September 2016). • Do not mount any lenses other than the compatible one, as doing such could lead to malfunction or accident." The manual is a little dated. Tamron have produced a few more compatible lenses since this TC came out. Actually, I am really counting on the new 70-210mm F/4 to be a solid, sharp lens at around F/8, as I would like to replace my current, heavy and bulky 70-200/2.8. The new lens does have to be at least as sharp as the 70-200 because I would need to use it with the X1.4 TC too, which it is also compatible with... So, yeah, I knew what I was doing when I bought this teleconverter. Unfortunately, I wasn't cautious enough when it came to trying it with the 300mm Nikkor. I'm not stupid, I knew what kind of lenses this TC is made for but you all know where I was coming from. So, while the dude is on speaker phone with some guy at the service center, I can hear the other guy: "Oh, yeah?... Alrighty then, send it in and we'll take care of it", like this is something they have to deal with on a regular basis... Anyway, I told the fella at the store that I wasn't authorizing any servicing until the guys at the center hit me with a quote... So the duo is sent out and I am a little nervous because it is not just the TC. The aperture actuator on the lens can really be screwed. The first couple of times I was able to somehow bend it enough to get it out of the way, but it looks like all that fidgeting eventually did it in. I am really hoping that the actuator is not in need of repair because that would probably just leave me with a manual-aperture 300mm, as I am not servicing this lens... And who knows, if it's in that bad a shape I might get rid of the actuator altogether and get to use the 300mm Nikkor with this very TC after all. We'll have to see. And to conclude: Lesson learned, I guess, and let this be a cautionary tale..

So, hey... This is the TC: Tamron Teleconverter 1.4x for Nikon F TCX14N700 B&H Photo Video And this is the lens: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Lens 1909 B&H Photo Video First of all: I bought this TC a couple of days ago to be used with my relatively new Tamron 70-200. I just thought it would be a good idea to also try it with my old 300mm Nikkor. I pretty much just wanted to get an idea of what kind of quality I could get out of this lens teleconverted. It's actually a little more complicated than that and you can read up all about it in my previous thread, if you want. So, to the problem. The first time I ever attached the TC to this lens, I had a hard time removing it. It took about a minute and with some shimmying I was able to separate the two. I thought something along the lines of: "Probably Tamron just overdid it on the tolerance".. At that point I wasn't sure if I was even going to use the combo so I didn't really care. After that I've attached and removed the TC a couple more times in total, one of which I had to struggle just a bit... However, as of now, those two do not want to separate... Yep... The lens was attached correctly, and, right now I can actually take pictures with it (it and the TC)!. The AF works and I can control the aperture with the aperture ring. Also, the image quality is very good, so everything is properly aligned. I am anal about sharpness and if the pictures are good enough for me, you can bet your *ss that this lens+TC combo is pretty awesome. Maybe that's why they're putting up a fight. So, the connector pin thingy on the TC does release the lens, which then rotates with no issue up to the point where it would normally separate from the camera mount / teleconverter... but it just won't come out of there.. There is also very little play. All the bayonet thingies are engaged pretty tight.. I tried applying some force, and also tried rotating the lens very slowly while pulling it away from the TC, looking for a slightly different "window of separation".. It must have been about 30 minutes before I gave up. It's no use... Unless someone has a trick up their sleeve, I'll have to send this inseparable duo for repair.. The only way this can be fixed is probably by completely disassembling the teleconverter, which I am not doing. If I could remove the mount from the lens, I would probably give it a try myself but I don't see how it can be done given that the TC is attached to its rear. I must say, that after trying to mod/hack the 300mm (which is covered in my previous thread), everything went back to the original state: all the screws were tightened and currently there are no foreign objects in the lens or the TC. Why are they stuck together? The only reason I can come up with is the fact that the 300mm Nikkor has a mechanical lever for controlling the diaphragm, something that this particular, E-aperture teleconverter does not accommodate... I also tried playing with the aperture ring, pulling on the lens but it didn't feel like it was doing something. I am really hoping there is a quick fix because by shipping out the TC AND the 300mm I'll be stuck with just my 'bare' 70-200 until I get my stuff back. *I have other lenses too but the 70-200, the TC and the 300mm is what I need for shooting my stitched panoramas, which I am currently engaged in.

Well, the solution to this problem is above this post, however, I've got myself a much bigger problem now... Anyway, I did try covering up select pins, with no progress. I then removed the plastic piece completely and put everything back they way it should be. I mounted the lens and tried that thing with the aperture ring, with no success. Then I tried to detach the 300mm from the TC... Yes,... "tried"... It won't come off, man!! I'm starting a new thread in the forum..

OMG!!!!!!!! It just works! The shutter, the focus, I mean: WOW!... How come no one came up with this idea? Thanks so much, man, but actually, I have a much bigger problem now... I'm starting a new thread...

Now I got. Thanks, man! Playing with that outer aperture ring just might do the trick, I'll definitively try it tomorrow, because it'd be like: Problem solved! I should have some time to play with this thing tomorrow. Who knows how that serial data link really works... Not us, apparently.

Wow... Thanks! Well, first, jamming something in the camera's f-mount is a no-go for me. Even if it does make it work, I would need to do this procedure "in the field" every time I'd want to use the 300mm with that TC. I'm not even going to attempt something like that just for the reason of having to keep the mirror box exposed for more than the few mandatory seconds it normally takes to change the lens on a DSLR. And, actually, I'm not sure that I would need to even argue with the camera: "Oh, so you think this is a G-lens? No! It's actually a D-lens!". I'm not getting into that because I don't care what kind of serial signals the TC is sending back! I just block those pins and let the camera argue with itself... All I want is for the power to get through to the AF motor and it really may be that simple... As witnessed before (by me): the AF motor don't care about the mounts, apertures and what not. The camera is blinking an error, refusing to take pictures, yet the AF works just fine, in Live View too! The beauty in this apparent "mess" is that it just works for me: So, I'm on a tripod, doing some multi-row HDR panoramas, naturally I would use the LV to focus anyway, it being iffy or not. And the metering? I always run a whole bunch of test shots before committing to a 180-shot or so sequence, so no, I don't care all that much about the metering because I don't trust it anyway. I need my histograms to figure out the exposures. As of now, I'm tempted to just, you know, chance it. I've got the pin layout, so I'll probably just go for it: expose the ones that I think should be in contact and if that doesn't work, then I'll give it a couple more go's with different pins. It is a bit of a hassle though, so, before I actually do it, I'd like to get some more input on the matter. This being a quite simple, totally reversible hack, I assumed that people here would have at least some experience with those basic internal workings. I probably should just wait a couple of days and unless someone talks me out of it, I'm totally doing it.

I've had this puppy for 12 years, at least. And gee... I didn't realize it could still be purchased new today... for the same price too, after all these years: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Lens 1909 B&H Photo Video So, I don't know which 300mm f/4D lens Nikon "didn't make"... Sorry for the earlier confusion...

They made it in Japan too. Anyway, I am sorry for causing a confusion. I have a D, not a G-lens. It has both: a dedicated aperture ring and a mechanical lever for the camera body to control the diaphragm in that manner. The Tamron TC does not provide any mechanical coupling for aperture or focus control. In the case of AF I lucked out, well, sort of, because my lens has a built-in AF motor. In theory, at least, I should be able to do what I need, because the AF DOES work when all the contacts are connected.

I am sorry. Given the variety I should have been more clear on the model. The lens in question is the 300mm F/4D AF-S, reviewed and discussed on this page: Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S Review (no affiliation whatsoever, you can delete this link if it violates any policies).

So, I just got me a Tamron X1.4 TC (the new one) to be used with my also relatively new Tamron 70-200/2.8 (the latest version). It works fine, however, I was kinda hoping that the same TC would work with my good, old 300/4D Nikkor. At first I was like: Wait a minute, this Tamron TC is good only for electronic diaphragms! But then I thought: Hey, the 300mm is a "D" model, so I'll be able to just use the aperture ring. Worst case scenario: "It doesn't work", though I didn't see why it wouldn't. I shoot with the D800, BTW, and I knew for a fact that it could be used with plenty of old, totally manual lenses. So, I was like: If it don't work - I'll make it work! And if THAT don't work - no biggie. I needed the X1.4 TC to cover the gap I had between 200 and 300mm and the extra reach out of the 300/4D would be a bonus. After attaching the 300/4D to the TC and switching the camera on, the first thing I noticed was a "F EE" error message. Then I looked through the viewfinder and went: How come it's so dark? But I quickly realized that the diaphragm was closed. I manually opened it up and the picture became what it should be. So, there's no way to control the aperture with the camera with this TC (duh!) but the AF works just fine (!). There's no way to release the shutter though and take a picture, because of that persistent error message. Setting up a "manual lens" did not help either. And then I decided to do something "drastic". By releasing a couple of tiny screws I was able to jam a piece of plastic in front of the contacts on the lens. And guess what.. I can now take pictures! I can dial in any shutter speed I want and to change the aperture I just have to rotate the aperture ring, which now, is even more accessible because of the TC. I took some test shots and, boy, am I glad I went the extra mile. The image quality is nothing to brag about but, given everything, it is up there, even by today's standards. The 'bare' 300/4D is a pretty good lens to begin with. So, to me this little project was definitely worth the hassle. The elephant in the room is obviously the loss of Auto-Focus... Yep, that's a bummer but nothing I can't live with, if I had to, that is and I need to explain: So, I only use the 300/4D for shooting panoramas (and the 70-200mm, mostly). Often I do need to go that long because a photo that one would normally capture with, let's say, a 100mm lens, I shoot with a 300mm because I have to break it up into several pieces. And there were plenty of times when I wished I had something even longer with me BUT even if I was given another huge telephoto lens for free, I just wouldn't carry it on my back... That is why I went the TC route. So, basically, if I'm shooting with the 300mm, TC or not, the camera is on a tripod and my ass is on a foldable stool. I can take my time and focus manually in Live View. However, I would really want to have the AF for the obvious reasons, one being that in broad daylight it is very hard to see anything on that LCD. Also, by permanently having the contacts blocked, the 300mm becomes a manual-focus, MANUAL APERTURE lens even when I'm not using it with the TC (which would, actually, be like 90% of the time). Then I thought: Hey, maybe don't block ALL the contacts, just the ones that are screwing it up for me. I was able to find the schematics of what each of the contacts was responsible for but it gets very confusing with a teleconverter in the equation. So this is where I need YOUR help. How do I get the AF to work w/o the camera going crazy on me? I must add that this weird setup is something that works for me and I really do need this. Thanks a whole bunch for reading all this!

Obviously you don't own the product in question. If the subject really interests you it is all covered in great detail on the internet but the gist of it is such: This particular 'hardware' is software dependent. The "Eye-Fi Helper" (software) must connect to the server and obtain a go-ahead in order to function and to be able to accept the photos from the wifi card. No server - no go-ahead. So, basically, at this point everyone is stuck with their perfectly functioning Eyefi card desperately trying to transmit photos that don't go anywhere. The sever(s) has been down for quite some time now. I assume that the aforementioned go-ahead involves some sort of encrypted key, otherwise Eye-Fi Helper would have been hacked a long time ago. Plus, that key is probably needed to decrypt the photos themselves... Very clever and quite sinister.

About a year ago I received the email everyone else did but it happened during the long break I've been taking off photography. I was taken aback by the announcement (obviously) but in the email it did say that the cards would still be operational in the "Direct Mode". Since it was the only mode I ever used my Eye-Fi with my Nikon D800, I just went on with my life w/o dwelling on the subject. I haven't done any shooting in almost two years. But now that I have a few upcoming shooting projects I thought to take all the gear out and give everything a dry run. And as you would guess, the Eye-Fi card is no longer functional. No Direct mode, not any mode. I went online to see what was up and realized that I had "missed out" on the whole drama. But the way I see it: if they're gone - they're gone. Whining about it won't bring them back. I do get the whole "obsolescence" side of it and - good riddance! But the thing is, currently with the camera that I have, Eye-Fi used to be the best solution for wireless photo transfer. Nothing else came close to the amount of versatility I used get out of shooting with one regular CF card and the Eye-Fi loaded into the SD slot. When it still worked it was super convenient, time-saving and at times simply necessary. It was awesome. I loved it! I would very much like to get my Eye-Fi card working again. There are numerous posts about alternative software but all the links are dead and their site is down. So, there's no way for me to know if that even was an actual thing or just empty talk. If there was such a software does anybody know of someone hosting it somewhere? Alternatively, I would pay a reasonable amount of money for a 3rd party software but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing. I'm on Windows 7 and my card is the Pro X2 16GB. *I only need the Direct mode functionality. As I foresee this discussion potentially going several non-productive directions I must ask from all the participants to stay on the topic of making the "obsolete" Eye-Fi cards work again. *I know what else is out there and no, I'm not interested in any other "similar" products. Thanks!

Hi, I need the exact type of screw that will fit into the hole and replace the original. To clarify: I'm not looking for a "replacement", as I do have the original lock, but a simple screw that will fit in its place. It can be a hex, a phillips or just about any type as long as the diameter and threading are a 100% match. It doesn't have to be the exact length but it should be pretty close (it can be a little longer). I have a whole bunch of screws laying around but I couldn't find anything that would fit properly. So, basically, I need someone to post a link on ebay. OR to tell me the exact type of screw and I'll go look for it. Thanks!