Dieter Schaefer

<blockquote> <p>primes were best for picture quality ... But rather are used for low light situations</p> </blockquote> <p>That's not mutually exclusive. Though modern zooms can make older primes look - hmmh - old! And being able to shoot (or even just focus) at f/1.8 (or even f/1.4) can make a big difference. <br> <br />The Nikon 35/1.8G DX is an excellent lens - and certainly not expensive. Whether or not it suits your shooting style is yet to be determined - maybe a 50 or a 28, 24, or even 20mm will suit you better. Note that Nikon does not make many DX primes - aside from the 35/1.8 there are the 40/2.8 and 80/3.5 - both of which are macro lenses. And the 10.5mm fisheye.</p>

<p>A full-frame option could consist of a Sony A7/A7II, 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 70-200/4. All lenses handle quite well on the small body (would get the newer A7II over the older A7 since handling has been improved a bit). Except for the 70-200, lenses are lighter than the SLR equivalents - but are a tad expensive. 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 primes are also available, with a 28/2 and 90/2.8 macro coming out in 2015.</p> <p>Quite a bit less expensive: Sony A6000 with 10-18/4, 16-70/4, and possibly again the above mentioned 70-200/4. Also an excellent 24/1.8 as well as 35/1.8. Now we are in APS-C territory - more compromised high-ISO results and the loss of one stop in DOF. </p> <p>Not too familiar with Fuji - the X-T1 comes to mind (cost quite a bit more than the A6000) - but there are f/2.8 lenses available: 16-55 and 50-140. And a long list of excellent primes.</p> <p>Can't really comment on m4/3 - though the OM-D/E-M1 comes to mind. Not much of a money or weight saving compared to the APS-C options above - and another loss of 1 stop in terms of DOF.</p>

<p>Purchased my refurbished D7100 too early (in October) - could have saved another $150 had I waited until after Thanksgiving. Price is still the same as around Xmas - $699.95 at adorama (that's a $300 saving on the price of a new one). Refurb D7000 is $519.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am leaning toward the Sigma 17-50 and the Prime 35mm Dx lens, my questions is, would it be a bit redundant to purchase these two to start off with since my range would be limited and within the range of 17-50mm? ... Debating between the 16-85 vs the sigma 17-50</p> </blockquote> <p>Going to add my 2 cents worth...<br> I would not start with a two lens kit consisting of a 17-50/2.8 and a 35/1.8 as I would find the range of the former to be too limiting (barely covers head shot portraits on the long end and isn't particularly wide on the short end). There's also quite a bit of "low light redundancy" when that lens is combined with the 35/1.8. Three options come to mind: Nikon 16-85 (widest), 18-140 (most reach), and Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (compromise between fast and the most limited range (but at least it's long end covers head shots better than a 17-50)). </p> <p>While I agree that the 11-16 (or any ultra-wide) is not a good option for a beginner, I don't agree that one should forgo an ultra-wide because it is too hard to master. After all, how is one going to learn to use it properly if one doesn't have one?</p> <p>I'd probably go with either the 16-85 or 17-70, the 35/1.8 and I would definitely add the 70-200/4.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate PN forum for this broad question</p> </blockquote> <p>Except maybe the "Mirrorless Digital Cameras" one: http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/ ?</p> <p>Can't add anything more to what Andy said - it's too broad a question. It appears your friend isn't a photographic novice and hence likely has things in mind he would like to see in a system?</p>

<p>The images produced with this M-Arvel, left me wondering whether focusing "some of the best optics ever created" with that "clear, bright and precise rangefinder" is something he might consider incorporating into his "shooting technique".</p>

<p>@Mark: I never owned the Nikon 20/2.8 AiS - but I did have the 20/2.8 AF (which I believe has the same optical formula). I found the corner sharpness to be problematic on a DX sensor and certainly on FX; the lens was "usable" only stopped down to at least f/8. The 20/4 Ai did a lot better - albeit the vignetting - while tolerable on DX - was too strong on FX. Frustrated, I got rid of both - and use the VC Ultron 21/1.8 on the A7 now (I also have the VC Color Skopar 21/4P which shows pronounced color shift on the A7 (it also did on the NEX 6 - but easily correctable there). A bit of an issue with field curvature on the Ultron 21mm especially when shot wide open - but no or negligible color shift in the corners. No smearing either. As is usual with rangefinder WA lenses, vignetting is quite strong wide open but manageable when stopped down. Easy to forget with all the corrections Leica applies in their digital M cameras to make their lenses behave.<br> I forgot what I read about the VC 28/1.9 - I was considering the newer version at some point - but believe it does OK on the A7. IIRC correctly, I had found one post that compared the two and found the older one to be better. It appears that Sony is about to release an inexpensive 28/2 providing another option for that focal length. I have tried the Nikon 28/2.8 AiS on the A7 and there are no issues (none beyond what the lens shows on a Nikon FX camera anyway). <br> Can't comment on the Leica 40mm (but recall a couple of posts that claimed no issues) - the VC Nokton 40/1.4 does fine on the A7.</p> <p>I certainly wish Sony had designed the sensor with an eye on adapting rangefinder lenses (in particular given their alliance with Zeiss). Since they had started from scratch, it certainly should have been doable.</p>

<p>@Mark, initially, I had thought the Summicron 35 ASPH was fine on the A7 - simply because I assumed that color shift and corner smearing "go together". Only when I took a few pictures of something flat did I realize that there is some amount of corner smearing. I needed to do some tests to exclude that it is caused by field curvature (like it is for the Ultron 21/1.8). The ultimate test came when I used a second copy on the A7 with the same result, while both copies did fine on a Leica M. It really is a pity that a $3200 lens is reduced below the level of a $200 kit lens by the thick sensor cover glass on the A7. </p> <p>I am debating whether to keep the 35 ASPH at all - for the time being I got a Nokton 40/1.4 which doesn't seem to have any issues on the A7. I was debating the 35/1.2 - but if I want a lens that large on the A7 I might as well mount my Sigma 35/1.4 (Nikon mount). </p>

<p>I've been toying with the idea of replacing the 70-200/2.8 VR with the f/4 version for a while - but can't convince myself doing it. This new compact and light-weight 300 gives me another idea - replacing both the 70-200/2.8 and the current 300/4 - and have 85/1.8G, 150/2.8, and 300/4 VR at my disposal at all times - they would fit easily into even a moderately sized bag while it requires a large bag to carry the 70-200/2.8 and 300/4 together. Something to mull over - will be watching the reviews of the 300/4 VR with a lot more interest now. And that just when I hoped to not have to get any gear lust in 2015!</p>

<blockquote> <p>I believe I have read that the Leica 35 M mount cron aspherical performance is notably compromised on the A7.</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed it is - corner smearing but no color shift.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I would have switched to either Canon, Sony, or Pentax a year ago</p> </blockquote> <p>Seems to me like "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" thinking. Canon had its share of issues, and their consumer-level camera models were changing even faster than Nikon's. Sony is making a mess of their A/E-mount duality and apparently can only make cameras - lenses are long in coming and when they finally appear, are usually more expensive than the competition. When dealing with Sony E/FE-mount system, one is well advised to wait awhile before purchasing, because chances are that the price has dropped significantly by then - if there isn't a new model already.</p> <blockquote> <p>people want light weight</p> </blockquote> <p>and smaller and smaller (or so the camera makers want us believe). The result are many camera bodies one can't hold comfortably and an increasing discrepancy in the size of the camera and the lenses - which leads to other handling issues. IMO, Nikon went the wrong way with the D7000 (an ergonomic disaster) but has shown now with the D750 that light and small is possible without sacrificing handling. Sony shows the same thing with the A7II. Too bad Nikon doesn't stick to the D300/D700/D800 control layout throughout - the D7000/D71000/D600/D750 layout is much less convenient.</p> <p>In the last few years, I would only classify one issue as a major disaster for Nikon - that was the D600 debris issue AND Nikon's botched handling of it. The others are rather minor in comparison - though QA/QC problems aren't exactly confidence inspiring. If one wants to see a manufacturer that has problems after problems with their cameras, then one only needs to look at Leica.</p> <p>And lastly: Ilkka +4</p>

<p>D5300 with touch screen and 60g less weight for $200 more - is that it?</p>

<p>Erik, from the B&H link you provided - if you look at the tab "In the box" for the lens you'll find:</p> <ul> <li>77mm Snap-On Lens Cap</li> <li>LF-4 Rear Lens Cap</li> <li>HB-73 Bayonet Lens Hood for AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR</li> <li>CL-M3 Lens Case (Black)</li> <li data-selenium="alsoIncludeListItem">Limited 1-Year Warranty</li> <li data-selenium="alsoIncludeListItem">Limited 4-Year USA Extension Warranty</li> </ul> <p>On the Nikon USA website the info is located under the "Accessories" tab for the lens listing.</p> <p>Elliot: they are here - scroll almost to the bottom for the "PF" entry: <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#pf">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#pf</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>The tripod collar isn't included? But maybe that's a good thing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wish Nikon had made it optional on the 80-400 as well - would have shaved $224 off the purchase price.</p> <blockquote> <p>Same one as the 70-200 f4?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes indeed.</p> <blockquote> <p>And the lens hood is not included in the price !</p> </blockquote> <p>It says that the hood is supplied with the lens on the Nikon USA website: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F4E-PF-ED-VR.html?cid=web-0115-300mm</p> <p>Just realized it is an E lens - electromagnetic diaphragm. Is that what we can expect in all (at least the higher end) lenses from now on?</p>

<p>Almost half the weight as the previous version (755g vs 1440) and 3 inches shorter (5.8 vs 8.8). A 300mm lens that is as short as my Sigma 150/2.8! And lighter! And, as I expected (and feared) - the price is way up there: $2K! Looks like the tripod ring might be optional - wonder if it is included in the $2K price or cost extra?</p>

<p><em>If your photographs aren't good enough</em>, <em>you're</em> not <em>close enough</em>. - Robert Capa.</p> <p>Believe what Kelby means is to get physically close to eliminate everything that doesn't add to the image. Not really much to do with focal lengths though - you can get the same framing with a 50 and a 100mm provided you moved in closer with the former - but the images won't have the same perspective and likely convey a different message.</p>

<p>ROM indicates that the lens has a chip embedded - read about here: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/004aUy and here: http://www.nemeng.com/leica/001c.shtml</p>

<blockquote> <p>My question is would you buy a d300 with 71k in the condition that I described.</p> </blockquote> <p>1: Depends entirely on the price. I have one that is just beyond the 100K clicks mark and another with about half that. Both will likely see quite limited use since I moved on to a D700 and D7100.<br> 2: Coming from a D80, the D300 is definitely an upgrade in all aspects: sensor, AF, controls. The newer D7000 and D7100 certainly have better sensors than the D300 as Shun points out - unfortunately, their controls and other features aren't at the same level as the ones in the D300. So is the D300 good enough for you?</p> <blockquote> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>digital Ms even more, as they have a smaller magnification of 0.6x</p> </blockquote> <p>0.68x<br> In some aspects, the M Typ 240 breaks with the tradition (live view) but it retains the "classical" rangefinder (albeit with LED frame lines now). Seeing what can be done with a good EVF or even with a hybrid finder like the one in the Fuji X100 series (especially the latest X100T), the shortcomings of the rangefinder become quite apparent. Literally the only thing that remains is that one can see outside of the framelines with lenses longer than 35mm - in all other aspects, technology is available to do better. </p> <p>To get the best out of Leica lenses, an M is still the only option - Leica applies enough hardware and software corrections to make the lenses look their best. Especially wide-angle lenses don't do well on the Sony A7 cameras - with the 12MP A7S being the exception.</p> <p>Model cycles likely will not change as fast with Leica as with other manufacturers - but the fact remains that technology evolves rapidly and while I don't agree that after 4 years a camera is ready for retirement, I can't see that one would not want an upgrade after 10 years. </p>

<p>Several points come to mind. Firstly, when I started out three decades ago, one recommended set of lenses was indeed 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 90mm. Another omitted the 50 and went 24mm, 35mm, 90mm. In both cases, 90 is not to be taken too literal - depending on the system it could have been 85, 90, 100, or 105. <br /> My initial set had been 35, 105, and 200 - and had I to do this over, I might replace the 35 with a 28. For many years, I did not have a 50 - and when I tried to make 50mm work for me, I had to finally realize that I can't.<br /> <br /> So, currently, for my A7, I have 21, 40/35, 90, and 180. The 40/35 came about because the Summicron 35 ASPH doesn't do well on the A7 whereas the 40mm Nokton does - and the 5mm difference is rather marginal. I can even imagine to do without the 40/35 altogether - though I might have to add a 28mm in that case. So, in essence, my current setup mimics rather closely the one you are musing about - instead of 75 and 135 - limits imposed by the rangefinder concept, I chose 90 and 180 though. On my Nikon FX, I am closer though: 35, 85, 150; there is no wider prime since I cover wide-to-ultrawide with a 16-35.</p> <p>My personal observation is that there are apparently two focal lengths that seem "odd" and hence not very popular: 28mm and 135. Both feel "in between" when considering the typical set of primes that were recommended. 28 is either "too wide" or "not wide enough" and 135 feels "too long" or "not long enough". If one starts with the 50, 28 should be natural but many still opt for 35 instead (which I agree is different from 50 and not meant to be a substitute). The next step then usually is a 24mm. Again, starting at 50, a 90 or thereabout is next, and then the 135 feels rather "too close" to the 90 and on opts for a 180 or 200 instead.</p> <p>On my M rangefinders (0.72 magnification viewfinder) I owned 35, 90 and 135. I wear glasses and with them the framelines for the 35 are already hard to see (and the 28mm aren't visible at all in a meaningful manner). 90 is already only a very small portion of the finder and the 135 needed goggles to allow at least some resemblance of framing an image (and to allow focusing). If I still used rangefinders, I could imagine making do with a 28 and a 75 - anything shorter or longer isn't a good fit on one anyway.</p>

<p>No, no, no - great photos are made with a Leica. All else is just poor imitations.</p>

<p>You are four months early for this to be an April's fools joke!<br> <br /> This has got to be either a joke (that I don't get) or spam?! </p> <p>If indeed serious, then this should be in the classifieds - I see no reason whatsoever for this to be posted in this forum.</p>

<p>Point 7 is the crux IMO too. And from the user point, an upgradeable camera would definitely be a plus. And I agree that Leica can't afford it! Technically, the rangefinder concept is outdated - but Leica apparently can't afford to move away from it for fear to lose the last its fans.</p>