kgavin

<p>Thanks! I will check with some rental shops on the B1 with the adapter, but I think I will find some kind of DIY way to use the deflectors if I go the B1 route.</p>

<p>Hello, I plan to pick up a couple of Profoto B1s. I'm coming from the Elinchrom Ranger, and have a few modifiers (39" Deep Octa, 17" Beauty Dish, 20x51" Strip). I know I can use the EL26333, the I have a question about the deflectors that come with Elinchrom modifiers (the Elinchrom part number is EL26305). Has anyone ever used this? I really don't want to buy a Profoto Beauty Dish ($400) if I don't have to, but I cannot see an umbrella hole in this thing based on the pictures online that would allow me use the deflector, and without the deflector the Elinchrom beauty dish is rendered useless. Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The earlier 645 AFD and 645 AFD II are very similar to it; the updates were minor and incremental (and for some people like myself, certain things within the updates actually worsened handling or operational convenience). I use a 645 AFD for both film & digital backs and am very happy with it.<br>

These models work with all the manual focus M645 lenses - some tremendous bargains and unique lenses without autofocus counterparts - as well as the non-leaf-shutter AF Mamiya/Phase One lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray...thanks a lot for this information. There are some pretty good deals on used Mamiya 645 bodies well within my budget (I was thinking about getting a D810 or another used D800 as a backup along with a 35mm /1.4...still may end up doing this later down the line). I'm going to dig a little further and see. Definitely want to get some tests in with this and an 80mm lens.</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I am in the early stages of considering shooting more portraits in MF and would like to get some information. I used a friend's PhaseOne 645 with a 40MP back and an 80mm lens and I really like the quality of the images.</p>

<p>I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D800, and plan to hold onto that camera for many reasons (namely the video capability). The question I have is what would be the best body (645 body) to buy to get started that will allow me to start with a film back and then perhaps move on to a digital back if I feel this is something I want to continue. I'm definitely open to getting something on the used market.</p>

<p>On my buddy's rig, I also did some shooting with high-speed sync and flash, but he had leaf shutter lenses, which are a bit out of my price range now. I heard that with MF the lens type has just as much bearing on the sync speed as the camera body, and upgrading to LS lenses would render the higher sync speed. With the newer high-speed sync lighting systems from Profoto and Elinchrom, are LS lenses necessary?</p>

<p>Please feel free to point me to other threads if this topic has been addressed previously.</p>

<p>Good to see the 24-70 works well for you. For events it can't be beat along with a 70-200. I've rented a 35 f/1.4 in the past and I've considered purchasing one, but it would be a pure artist play and equipment grab. It's quality is superb, but I found myself going back to the 24-70 when I rented it. They are very different lenses although some tend to change one for the other for non-event work.</p>

<p>I use the 24-70 for travel as well, along with a 50 f/1.4 (for nighttime walking around) and the 105 macro (in the event I want to start taking portraits of people). I find those three lens and an SB-900 make for a great travel setup for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter, i was just reading reviews on the 24-120/4, since it has a rebate. it just seems way too compromised in terms of performance for me to consider it. if you look at the photozone ratings, it's pretty bad on the borders and edges past 50mm, even when stopped down to f/8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I had a 24-120 f/4 from late-2012 to mid-2013. The range is perfect, but that distortion was nasty at every focal length except 35mm, and the sharpness was pretty bad in the corners at the extreme ends. The center (out to about DX-crop) was amazing. I ditched it and ended up getting a 24-70 for event stuff, and a 24-85 dirt cheap on the auction site for travel (the 24-85 is just as good as the 24-120 from a IQ standpoint). Never been happier…the 24-120 is actually a pretty heavy lens…and for the weight and cost, I'd rather be carrying a 24-70. The range can't be beat though.</p>

<p>The 16-85mm is the sharpest of all the DX zooms Nikon makes. I owned one when I had a D300s. If the Tamron functions as a walk-around and you don't use the 2.8 aperture that often, I would get a 16-85. But if you need the longer length for portraits, I would get some variation of an 85mm prime, which would fit between the 50mm of the Tamron and the 105mm prime.</p>

<p>The D800 is a perfectly good camera to use in DX mode…in a pinch or over an extended period of time if you do not have the FX lenses in the specific range. The decision between a D7100 or D7000 and a D800 is about more than pixel density or image quality. The D800 has features those other cameras do not, and vice versa. When I first bought a D800, I was using a D300s and my mid-range zooms was a 17-55 DX and a 16-85 DX. All of my other lenses were FX, so in the short term, I used my DX lenses. You can certainly do the same with extremely good IQ and pixel density on a D800 in DX mode. As time passes you can begin to purchase FX lenses. DX crop mode on the D800 is still much better than a D5000.</p>

<p>Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G. That lens is my money-maker!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The DxO numbers for the D4 sensor aren't that great.<br>

D4's 13.1 EV for DR....14.4 for the D610 or D800<br>

ISO Score D4 2965, same as the D610, about 1/6 stop worse than the D3S @ 3250.<br>

Colour Depth for D4 24.7bit, 25.3 bit for the D800 and 25.1 for the D610.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>DxO may say one thing, but I've shot with a rented D4 a few times. The low-light performance of that sensor is just silly. It smokes my D700 and my D800. I've shot with a D3s as well, and the D4 is better than the D3s in low light (although not by a big margin). I hear you with the technical tests, but I think it's better to sample and compare the results in practice. Every time I rent a D4, I have a hard time sending it back, and have an equally hard time keeping my credit card in my pocket. The Df, with a D4 sensor (Nikon states "the same exceptional image quality as the D4"), works for me.</p>

<p>The 39-point focus system (because all of the focus points are densely packed in the center of the frame) is the only thing that is a bit of a downer. That's one of the things (along with the body type) that kept me away from the D6xx/D7xxx cameras. But I don't necessarily need 51-point focusing either. If there was a system with the spread of the 51-point but with count of say a D90 (I think that had 12 points), that would be perfect for me. I don't plan on using this camera to track Usain Bolt in the 100...my D700 with the grip or a rented D4 is what that's for.</p>

<p>A lot of different opinions. I plan on purchasing one (a silver one) if I like the feel ergonomically, but I'm going to wait several months to allow any bugs to come out of the cracks (and maybe see a slight decrease in price). I currently have a D800 and a D700, but think I would rather travel with this camera, a 24-85mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. I find I never need more than that when I travel anyway. I'm headed on a trip next month and that's all I'm taking with my D800. The D800 is overkill for simple photos, and the D4 sensor in this camera is much better than the already good sensor of the D700 as far as low light goes. Also, this camera does have a bit of a cool factor, and like my 14-24, I plan to keep it as a collector's item when/if I ever lose the desire to shoot.</p>

<p>This camera, in silver, will be my new travel camera! I'm just happy the D4 sensor is in a body smaller than a D4. My D800 was serious overkill for casual travel shooting.</p>

<p>The price of the 58/1.4 is insane. From a branding standpoint, they could have at least put the term "NOCT" on the lens to have it compare to the previous 58/1.2. At least make us think we're buying something truly special. The literature on Nikon's site already labels it as a lens to use wide-open at night to reduce certain effects. This will probably be one of the most specialized lenses that Nikon sells...in the same category as the 45mm and 85mm PCEs. Even the less than casual user who would buy any of the other f/1.4 lenses will think twice about this lens given the f/1.8 and f/1.4 50mm options available.</p>

<p>I once dropped a battery grip for a D300s (I think it's the MB-D10). It's drop wasn't very far (only 2 feet onto an asphalt street). It had a tiny bruise on the plastic and I thought nothing of it. And since I was only using the grip for handling purposes and not for the extra frame per second (the D300s is 7fps on it's own and 8fps with the grip), I never noticed the thing didn't work.</p>

<p>Fast forward 8 months when I bought a used D700 and wanted to see its 8fps with the grip in action. It didn't work. I thought it was the D700; the guy in the camera store said that the latch that holds the battery compartment in place was not aligned, hence the grip wasn't getting any power (the other functions like the shutter, focus point toggle, and AF-ON worked fine through the internal leads). I took it to a Nikon repair shop in DC, and they told me it would cost $165 to repair (the grip was "only" $245 retail). I ended up selling the old-grip for parts and buying a brand new one...after I tried to disassemble the old grip and jerry-rig the latch with no real success, and a battery grip's mechanics are quite simple.</p>

<p>Since then I am very careful with all of my gear and treat it as if it's a newborn baby. No rain on a newborn baby; no rain on the gear. Wouldn't toss a newborn baby on a cushioned bed; won't toss my gear onto anything even if it's well cushioned. Always secure and double-check a newborn's carseat; always close and secure my camera bag with everything placed inside properly. Accidents happen, and we read all the time that these professional metal lenses from Nikon are built like tanks. But these are highly sophisticated pieces of equipment. I know paying nearly $700 is tough, but send it in and get the repairs done and just try to be more careful the next time.</p>

<p>Unfortunately it doesn't look like a fast, DX body along the lines of a true D300s follow-on will come about, and if it did, I doubt it would be 10+ fps. I've stated this before, if someone needs a beefy, responsive DX camera that can shoot sports or wildlife, just buy a D300s (used or refurbished, not new) with a grip and get 8 fps. A very low mileage D300s and a grip will run you less than a new D7100 body. It may be "old" technology, but I know several wildlife photogs that bought one over a D7100 recently and they are content. But you already have a D300, so the only other viable Nikon option is a D4 or a used D3s. Neither of these gets you that much more on megapixels and costs you the DX reach, but offer a world of other benefits.</p>

<p>Your experience is not unique. I bought this lens when I first moved to FX because I wanted a nice replacement for the 16-85 DX on the full format. Make no mistake, this lens on FX is not as good as the 16-85 on DX. It's full of crazy distortion, which is not always fully corrected in-camera or in Lightroom. And as others have said, a 5x zoom is going to have its compromises. I will say the copy I had was as sharp as a tack in the center even just a 1/3 of a stop above f/4. But I personally don't think the lens is worth the $1299 price tag.</p>

<p>I ended up getting a 24-85 that I use for walking around. That lens has its own distortion issues, but I'd rather deal with the $400 (refurb price from Adorama) lens distortion and walk a step forward or crop a bit than deal with $1200+ lens distortion. Also, the 24-85 is great as a walk around because the weight is a lot less. If you can live with 85mm versus 120mm at the long end and live with f/4.5 versus f/4, it's worth it...you can spend that extra $800 on a lot of other things...like a 60mm macro lens for your copy work. ;-)</p>

<p>I have the 105/2.8/VR and truly love that lens. I shot macro a little when I first got into photography and bought this lens. When I grew into other types of photography, I never sold it, and I began to use it more for portraits...especially when traveling. The 70-200/2.8 is kind of heavy and large for travel; the 85/1.4 is nearly twice the cost (the 70-200 is even more expensive) and I don't like losing stuff when I travel. So this lens, along with a cheap midrange zoom and a pocket-sized 50, are perfect for traveling. For just macro use, I wouldn't spend the extra money, but if you plan on doing other things, it might be something to think about.</p>

<p>The prime versus zoom quality issue aside, I would think about what you shoot when deciding between the 28/1.8 and the 24-70/2.8. I only have a the 24-70 because of events; I don't use it for anything else because in other situations I have time to craft the shot I want with a prime lens, or I'm shooting casually with a 24-85/3.5-4.5. If I stopped shooting events tomorrow, the 24-70 will be sold.</p>

<p>That said, most modern lenses are very good...even the so-called consumer lenses. I own a 24/1.4, have shot with the 35/1.4 and own a 85/1.4. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion, others will disagree), those three primes are simply the best things one could put on a Nikon camera. The sharpness and characteristic of the images, to me, are just on another level, even compared to the 2.8 zooms. I don't know much about the 28/1.8, but I've heard great things about it as well. But the zoom are very sharp as well. I would think about what and how to you shoot before making a purchase.</p>

<p>When I had DX cameras, I started with a 16-85 and bought a 17-55 when I got into shooting events. I would say it's good to have both of them because they are very different lenses; when on vacation I never liked carrying the 17-55 around because it's heavy. If you can somehow manage to use the 16-85 when you absolutely need it, buy the 17-55.</p>

<p>I typically buy refurbished equipment and check it thoroughly when I get it. However, I would expect a refurb unit to be restored to the same condition as it was when it left the manufacturing line. A few dozen actuations is okay, but over 5000 screams demo unit as opposed to refurb. I would buy a demo lens, but not a demo camera. My own quirk. I would return it and try to buy another refurb. I would imagine Adorama would have several refurbished D600 units on hand at any given time.</p>

<p>I just picked up this lens and I love it. I also picked up a used unit for less than half of the new price. I'm pretty much in the same boat: own a 24-70, but want a smaller lens for casual walking around and in the street. I owned a 24-120 f/4, but found it heavy and loaded with a lot of distortion except at 35mm, so I sold it (I bought it used, so I lost very little money on the sale) and picked up the 24-85 for 25% of the price. The extended range was nice, and the 24-85 has more distortion, but for my uses, it's just as sharp as the 24-120, is a lot lighter, and I was able to put that extra $900 into some Elinchrom gear. :-)</p>

<p>I just find it hard to believe that the old version of the 70-200 VR was $1999 and the new version is $2399, while the old version of this lens is $1675 and the new version is $2700. That's a 20% increase on the 70-200, but a 61% increase on the 80-400. I've said this before, but there must really be some secret sauce in this lens to get to that kind of price point, unless this is all about marketing (Nikon positioning this as a true "specialty" lens rather than a simple extended range telephoto). Using the 20% increase on the 70-200, this lens price should have come in around $2010 or so (let's just round up to $2100). I know...70-200 to 80-400 is an apples to oranges comparison.</p>

<p>Perhaps Nikon didn't want the 70-200 and the 80-400 so close in price, which is why I say it's all about marketing. But even this is a little silly...if I'm a birder looking to get into digital, I could buy a Canon 70D crop body for $1200 and the 100-400 for $1500 - total cost is equal to this Nikon 80-400 lens (sans body).</p>

<p>But, as others have said, this lens (like other products and services priced high) has its buyers. I have a buddy who shoots weddings and says he has a $20K option package...not because the photo package is worth it, but because there are always one or two people who buy it every year.</p>

<p>Can you share with us what you shoot? I agree with others and would say the D7000 or D7100 would be the best choice for upgrading as far as image quality goes. But I do know two people in my photography club who have bought D300s units over the past few months. These folks didn't by these cameras new and paid less around $700 for the body (one actually got a nice body for around $600). But these people primarily shoot sports and wildlife (they needed a high frame rate), and bought the cameras primarily for that purpose. Depending on your situation and needs, getting a used D300s and a lens may be better than getting a D7000/7100.</p>

<p>Aside from the filters (which I never use when I'm shooting), I think you should make sure both lenses are aligned properly. I didn't read anything about that.</p>

<p>Personally, I used the D and G versions (not in a scientific test), but I find the G better (in terms of handling, focusing, color, etc.) in every way.</p>

<p>Chiming in late, but I had a 24-120 that I used for traveling and sold it earlier this year. For it's price (I bought a demo unit for $1150, but brand new it's $1299), I did not find it all that exceptional. I also found it a little heavy for just kind of carrying around the street casually. I ended up getting a used 24-85 VR on the auction site for about $275, sold the 24-120 for $1100, and bought a couple of Elinchrom softboxes with the difference. On my D800, I don't find too much of a difference in the IQ between both lenses and like the lighter load. However, if getting out to 120mm is important, there really is no other lens like it (constant f/4, VR, etc.). For me, most of the time I was just being lazy when I went out to 120mm.</p>