Dieter Schaefer

<p>Buy a used 16-85 and sell it when you "upgrade to FX in the future". The monetary loss incurred then might not be more than renting said lens for two weeks now.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Given the OP's other lenses the mere mentioning of "paid wedding photographer" and the fact that there isn't a budget for the 70-200/2.8 VR (preferably the newer version) leaves only the 80-200/2.8D as a valid option IMHO. No buts or ifs - the versatility is needed and not given by any of the other lenses mentioned - which are all for rather specialized applications. First things first - get the zoom to cover your needs.</p> <p>For his personal travel photography, he is (a) already pretty well equipped (the 70-210 isn't actually all that bad stopped down a stop or two) and the 80-200 can certainly do duty while traveling (at the expense of carrying its 1.5kg weight). Moot point really - business needs come first. </p> <p>None of his lenses have real close-up capabilities - but a Canon 500D diopter on either the 24-70 or 80-200 should be sufficient until a macro lens can be acquired. Debating a choice between 80-200 and 105/2 DC seems to me putting wants way above needs; there's no way the 105/2 can be a substitute for the zoom.</p> <p>The two-ring 80-200/2.8 can have problems when used near 200mm and close to its minimum focus distance - but a trip to Nikon (lens and camera) can sometimes improve things substantially. </p>

<p>Nevermind...</p>

<blockquote> <p>are the 21mm f2.8 ASPH, the 50 f2.8 Elmarit, the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit and a 135mm f4</p> </blockquote> <p>Give them a try - the longer ones should be fine and I recall having read somewhere that the 21 Elmarit is OK too (depends on the definition of OK though).</p> <p>The 35 Summiron ASPH is problematic - as already mentioned; if I decide I need 35mm, I might give the VC 35/1.2 Nokton II a try.<br> <br />VC 12mm Heliar - not good. Neither is the 15mm.<br> VC 75mm - OK on the A7, don't know about the A7R.<br> Generally, it seems that telecentric M-mount lenses work acceptably, symmetric lens designs don't. Lenses with exit pupils close to the sensor don't do well either. Older designs for film can be problematic because they don't account for the glass stack in front of the sensor (their design calculations assume that their is only air between the rear of the lens and the "sensor" (aka film). Even if one doesn't get the color cast, the corner smearing might still be present and make a lens appear softer on the A7R as when it's mounted on an M9 or M240. It is my understanding that a "curved" sensor could help with mitigating the effect of shallow angles of incidence on the sensor pixels (something that the "tilted" microlenses of the Leica sensors already attempt to address. Another possibility might be some in-camera deconvolution algorithm but I believe that can only be truly effective on non-Bayer sensors (speculation on my part).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Come on Dieter, is using manual mode such a big chore? Time was (not so long ago) when the only way to do things was to twiddle a knob on top of the camera and twist a ring on the lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know - I cut my teeth on purely manual cameras (FM, FM2) for some 20 years - the number of shots missed in that time "twiddling" those knobs and dials makes me not exactly covet fully manual mode anymore. But your post prompts me to give M with AutoISO a try - it might actually prove to be the best choice (after all, it's actually an "auto" mode and not a manual one). This would then be the second main "adjustment" I would make based on advice from the interwebs - the other was to give "back button" focus a try (which is now all I use).</p> <blockquote> <p>Now we've got one or two thumb wheels to do the same thing - not quite so ergonomic IMHO</p> </blockquote> <p>I think it's actually better than the old dial and ring arrangement.</p> <blockquote> <p>Your very valid point about not having to dig in menus would seem to run counter to wanting the ability to set up aperture limits. That would almost <em>have</em> to be done via a menu option.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily - for example, pressing the ISO button could have you select AUTO and then the two wheels could be used to set high ISO limit and minimum shutter speed (A mode) or maximum aperture (S mode). A lot of functionality currently buried in menus could be made more readily available - to the point were a menu wouldn't be needed at all. Having to dig through the menu for the AutoISO settings is one of the main things I would like to see Nikon change.</p>

<p>3rd cam only should not create an issue - so it could indeed be that the camera can't "feel" that 3rd cam. One way to exclude that would be to try another lens - which might no be an option for you though. Or try the lens on another camera - same issue of getting access to one though.</p> <p>AFAIK, the cam is just there to communicate the aperture information to the camera - similar to the AI ring on a Nikon camera. Unfortunately, the link to more information (Jem Kine's article) here is broken: http://leica.nemeng.com/001c.shtml IIRC, then the 3rd cam also provide information about the lens' vignetting characteristics so that the camera can take it into account when determining exposure.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What you're basically asking is for Shutter Priority mode to act like Manual, in that you want control over both the aperture <em>and</em> shutter speed. What's wrong with just using Manual? Because by the time you've set all desired parameters in a menu, you could have switched to manual mode and set them directly several times over.</p> </blockquote> <p>In some sense, yes. Many times, I wish I had the option to limit the aperture the camera can select in S mode when doing bird photography at fast shutter speeds and using Auto ISO. Most of the time I end up shooting wide open and would welcome the option to tell the camera to not do that but stay at one stop above and increase the ISO instead. But you do make a point - I need to investigate how my Nikon's behave in M mode when AutoISO is active - maybe it's not such a bad solution after all: http://www.robertotoole.com/2011/12/30/auto-iso-the-third-auto-mode/</p> <p>The issue I have with selecting the minimum shutter speed when in A mode (and using Auto ISO) is that I have to go into the menu to change it - this parameter needs to be accessible without digging into a menu. And the same is true about a maximum aperture value - it may not be useful to many but it's easy enough to implement through firmware. Nothing wrong with having options, I suppose ;-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>but why pay what Leica asks when a camera like the Sony A7r will give me a body for my Leica optics (with 3rd party adapter), equally high or higher on-sensor image quality,</p> </blockquote> <p>Simple - because most Leica M-mount lenses don't work well on the A7R. Aside from the already mentioned corner softness (or corner smearing), there's also the magenta (or Italian flag) color cast for most of the lenses wider than 35mm (the WATE being one notable exception).<br> <br /> FWIW, I own a A7 and can attest to the corner smearing with the Summicron 35 ASPH. The pre-asph Summicron 90 does fine. A Voigtlander Color Skopar 21/4P is unusable due to severe magenta color cast in the "corner" (in reality about 1/3 of the image width on either side); the Voigtlander Ultron 21/1.8 does not show this issue - it's the other notable exception in the WA and UWA range. While some seem have some success in correcting that color case in post processing, I have failed to get consistent results. And, of course, there's currently no correction possibility available for the corner smearing - to which the much thicker glass stack of the Sony sensor seems to be a major contributing factor (about 3mm vs 0.5mm in the M8 and 0.8mm in the M9; don't know the value for the M).</p> <p>When the A7/A7R came out, it was surmised that the A7R would be better suited for use with M-mount lenses due to its different sensor design; it quickly became apparent that this is not the case and that the A7 does "better" (but as I mentioned above, better doesn't mean good in many cases).</p> <p>Leica already does some major in-camera processing to "tame" their lenses; unfortunately, the same type of correction is not available in the Sony A7/A7R.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The Macro-Elmarit was available as 2-cam or 3-cam; with the former, only stop-down metering is available on your R6. It's easy to verify which version you have: a 3-cam has a black, three-tiered stepped cam just inside the second cam: http://www.kehblog.com/2012/03/leica-r-lenses-understanding-cams.html</p> <p>However, since yours uses a E55 filter it's the 2nd version (Serial Numbers above 3013651) - it should indeed be a 3-cam. Please verify that the 3rd cam isn't missing.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But I suppose its not possible</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, not possible. Not with the D80 and not with any other Nikon DSLR AFAIK.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The camera will not adjust focus during a shot anyways so AF-S or AF-C won't matter so much for tracking during a pan shot</p> </blockquote> <p>While I agree that the D70 (and most DSLRs) can't AF when the mirror is up - the above certainly gives a wrong impression. With AF-C, tracking is activated and the camera will adjust focus continuously while accounting for the movement of the subject (in other words, the camera will attempt to focus on where the moving subject will be when the shutter opens). With AF-S, focus is locked once acquired and when the subject moves, the result will be an out-of-focus image (I have plenty of examples from being in the wrong (AF-S) mode for a moving subject). Now, if I recall correctly, the D70 is one of the cameras that activates tracking even in AF-S mode when it detects motion during the focus acquisition - so for that particular body, the choice may not matter much indeed. I agree with Andrew though that I would select AF-C with a single AF area and then pan with the race car trying to keep that active sensor on the same spot of the car.</p>

<blockquote> <p>i found the A65 just not cut out for the job</p> </blockquote> <p>Please elaborate - what is it the A65 can't do?</p> <blockquote> <p>I like what both the D5300 and D7100 have to offer.</p> </blockquote> <p>Please be specific - what is it that you like on those cameras (that's not offered on the A65)?<br> Answering these two questions will make it a lot easier for anyone to help you - and may even clarify which to chose for yourself.</p>

<p>Certainly not normal behavior - the lens should definitely be checked out. Don't understand your distinction between repair and service - if the lens needs adjusting, chances are it needs to be opened to some extent to perform that service. If it then turns out that an element needs replacing - then your service becomes a repair and you might be better off finding another copy on the used market. Doesn't Nikon UK provide a quote before they do any work?</p>

<p>I wasn't immediately thinking of a scam - but whether I would be willing to spend money on a camera that has obviously been abused. 10K actuations is not much - so why would the bottom plate be heavily brassed if the owner wasn't careless with the camera?</p> <p>FWIW, it seems that "used but not abused" copies go for around $6,000 on ebay (most cost more but those only have a few hundred clicks and look pristine); so 10K+ clicks and abused - no more than $5K. In a cash transaction - you really want to walk into a meeting with that much cash in your pocket? Wouter's advice seems sound - walk away. </p>

<p>Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20: http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/mirrorlessmover20.aspx or even the Mirrorless Mover 10: http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/mirrorlessmover10.aspx<br> I used the 20 for a NEX 6 with 3 lenses or now with the A7 and two lenses. Not as a waist bag though.</p>

<blockquote> <p>i really think the mount issue is what's stopped Nikon from innovating more in the mirrorless realm. you can't just abandon the F-mount to build a new system -- or can you? and if you could, would you want to?<br /> so good backwards compatibility (posing no limitations in use of older gear) should be extremely high on the agenda. So high, you might just end up using the F-mount. With only AF-S and Ai/AiS properly supported?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think this hits at the crux of the problem - users will demand compatibility with every Nikon lens already out there. So non-Ai, Ai/Ai-S, screw-driver AF, AF-S, VR - the new camera mount needs to have all that functionality to feed through one or a set of different adapters - in addition to whatever the new lens system would require on its own. Certainly possible - but at what cost? Only support AF-S and VR? One can certainly still mount all the manual focus lenses - there just won't be an automatic diaphragm. <br /> The OP is also asking for such a camera in the "D800 class" - so something akin to the Sony A7R? Or A7S (is that the "Df class"?). Given that the price would be $2500+, I am fairly certain that I wouldn't be interested. I expected the Df to come in below the D600/D610 price point and I would certainly expect the same from a Nikon FX mirrorless. Should Nikon come out with such a camera? I think it's a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" ;-)</p> <blockquote> <p>So instead of just thinking of a copycat Nikon mirror-less lets go for something truly innovative.</p> </blockquote> <p>I like seeing people taking pictures with their ipads. In order to see things more clearly (aka pixel peep at the 100% level without the need to zoom in), a ~10-inch display can't possibly be large enough. Given that an ipad with a 2048x1536 resolution weighs about a pound, it should be possible to come up with a 7,360 × 4,912 resolution 20-inch 2-lbs contraption that somehow allows to mount lenses. Along these lines http://fishxpressions.wordpress.com/tag/dslr-rig/ maybe?</p>

<blockquote> <p>i'm not sure how much better nikon will do with a future DX DSLR than the d7100</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm easy - just add more buffer and a (dedicated) AF-ON button in the correct place. Would prefer a more robust D300-style body but that ship likely has sailed. Some more small things, but they are all firmware related. 24MP is definitely "enough".</p> <blockquote> <p>so there are inherent technical limitations in an FX mirrorless that aren't that easy to overcome. and the elephant in the room is, if Nikon did go there and make one, what lenses would you put on it?</p> </blockquote> <p>The FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 for the A7 series show that it's possible to overcome the issues - with vignetting left for the software to take care of. Rangefinder lenses "left over" from the film era will have problem (unless telecentric by design) - the main issue is that they are designed with the assumption that there is only air between the lens and the film, not a stack of glass that can be anywhere from less than 1mm (Leica) to 4mm thick. Edge smearing is nothing but the effect of light that focus on one sensor elements being spread over an entire group of them. This was already demonstrated almost 7 years ago right here: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00M5ag (just wished I had "remembered"). I haven't looked at all the Leica lenses - particularly the ones designed in the "digital era" - but Leica certainly needs the software corrections to make the older ones "behave".<br /> What lenses? I would settle for a few primes between 16/18mm and 135/180mm. Pretty much the same range as rangefinder lenses. Most Leica lenses aren't exactly small (or light for that matter - they are metal). Longer teles or zooms negate the advantage of having a small camera body - as if this would need mentioning again ;-)</p> <p>Re: manual focus with EVF. I have used only the EVF in the NEX 6 and A7. Focus peaking is certainly not selective enough to pinpoint the plane of focus. Easy access to a magnified view, however, makes manual focusing rather convenient and certainly easier (for me) than focusing on the screen of my D700 (or trying to use the green dot for confirmation). Of course, having to switch between magnified and normal view isn't very convenient particulaly when your subject is moving. I don't have a Df, but if someone sends one my way, I'll be happy to report back whether I think focusing is better on its viewfinder or the one in the A7.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Of course, with the right adapter, you could use a Leica or Voigtlander lens, but that isn't something that Nikon would normally promote.</p> </blockquote> <p>The camera would need to be designed with these lenses in mind in order for this to work. Sony missed the mark with the A7/A7R/A7S. Nikon would have the chance since they start a new lens system for that FF mirrorless anyway. And since it would take a few years to build up that new lens system (see Sony), there would be an incentive to make the camera suitable for adaptation of M-mount lenses. Aside from designing the camera properly, in-camera correction (as Leica has to do to make their own lenses behave on the digital M bodies) is also necessary - and Nikon (and Sony) likely will not want to spend the time and money to get it right. Non-retrofocus design can keep the lenses small - but there is a trade-off in form of vignetting, color cast and smearing in the corners (the latter reducable by using thinner glass in front of the sensor and having an exit pupil as far away from the sensor as possible).</p> <blockquote> <p>I think Nikon should go back to producing advanced DX bodies and lenses that "advanced amateurs" want and are willing to pay for.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed, Nikon went out of their way to avoid making those cameras and lenses that they could have sold truckloads of. As already pointed out - the D7100 is fantastic with only one major flaw that Nikon introduced needlessly. In order to promote FX and CX, Nikon let DX wither and quite frankly, at this point I would not recommend a consumer-grade Nikon DSLR purchase to anyone (the same goes for Canon who similarly let their APS-C fall by the wayside). With the Sony A6000 there is now the first high-end mirrorless that can compete in the same price range (the likes of m4/3 OM-D and Fuji XT are twice the price). Personally, I will likely purchase another high-end DX body once Nikon gets around releasing one - but it will be mostly for use with the 80-400 (not something I would want to do with any mirrorless currently available). For the rest of my shooting, DX is out.</p> <blockquote> <p>If Nikon made an FX mirrorless at the moment, they'd be in exactly the situation that Sony are in - no native lenses, quite expensive, not that small.</p> </blockquote> <p>The camera IS small, the zoom lenses aren't - out of necessity (Sony's 70-200/4 has no advantage in terms of size or weight over its Nikon, Canon, or Tokina counterpart; the 24-70/4 is slightly lighter than Canon's offering). There's a big difference between schlepping a D800E with 24-70/2.8 out hiking the backcountry and doing so with a A7R and the 24-70/4. What IS a problem with Sony is that even their Zeiss-branded lenses aren't all that great. With a shorter flange-to-sensor distance vignetting rears its (mostly) ugly head even more - and software correction thereof can entail the trading off darkness for noise. Soft corners, be it due to lens aberrations, field curvature, or too thick a glass stack in front of the sensor seem to be quite common too.</p> <p>Should Nikon come out with an FX mirrorless - they likely will have to at one point and it will be a camera that competes with the "entry-level" FX DSLR bodies, not the high-end ones.. And I think that for the majority of FX users, that kind of FX mirrorless will be sufficient, lighter, and less costly. The heavy pro-body DSLR will become even more of niche product than they already are now.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Have you set the lens to its smallest aperture setting?<br /> btw, it only works when it's set on f16</p> </blockquote> <p>Wasn't aware the Otus had an aperture ring - thought it was a G-type lens. In this case, you need to set the aperture to the the smallest setting (f/16) and leave it there; aperture is now controlled with the front dial on the camera.</p> <blockquote> <p>On some cameras you can override the default behaviour using a custom function and after that you can use the aperture ring to set the aperture.</p> </blockquote> <p>AFAIK, the D90 is not one of them though.</p> <blockquote> <p>My D90 will 'work' with unchipped lenses</p> </blockquote> <p>"Work" as in being able to take pictures - but it won't meter.</p>

<p>First things first: do other lenses work on the D90 and does the Otus work on another camera?<br> What does the D90's top LCD display read when the lens is attached? The lens has a chip in it, so it should be recognized like any Nikon AF, AF-S, or Ai-P lens and metering should work on the D90 (which can't meter with chipless lenses).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Can I definitely use my lens with it?</p> </blockquote> <p>Not so sure - the 105 VR is a G lens and has no aperture ring. And I am not aware of a bellows that transmits the aperture setting - let alone when the lens is reversed. And shooting with an aperture fully stopped down (the default of any G lens) isn't going to be of much help.<br /> <br />Canon's MP-E 65mm lens seems to me the best way of getting beyond 1:1 actually 1:1 - 5:1. All you need then is light - lots of it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What do you think about <strong>50mm prime + sigma 105mm macro 2.8 vs </strong><strong>60mm 2.8 macro + 85mm prime</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong><br /></strong>Personal preference on the one hand and practical issues on the other. 60mm macro vs 105mm macro is mostly a matter of what you shoot - if working distance is important, then the 105 is the ticket (or longer). <br> 50 vs 85 prime - matter of personal preference. Many like the 50 on DX for portraits - I rather use the 85. <br> 60 and 85 are very close together - one should have a very good reason to haul both along. Same with my suggestion of 85 and 105 together - only warranted IMO if you shoot a lot of macro and on the other hand need f/1.8 a lot in a similar focal length range. For shallow DOF applications there really isn't a lot of difference between 85 a f/1.8 and 105 at f/2.8 - though naturally the OOF rendering (dare I say bokeh?) depends on the particular lens. The macro lens is the more versatile one - the 85 can't do double duty for macro.<br> Carrying a 17-50 OS and a 50/1.8 prime seems a bit of an overkill to me - unless you are shooting f/1.8 all the time.<br> 10-20, 17-50, 105 macro is the "minimalist" 3 three lens kit that seems to be the most versatile to me.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This seems like a lot of overlap among all 3 of your lenses and feels inefficient</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the rock solid: <strong>UWA, 17-50 2.8 and 18-140.</strong><br> In that scenario, the 17-50 seems unnecessary - all it gives you is f/2.8. And if you need that often (you say you often shoot at f/1.8 - f/2.8), then what's the 18-140 doing in there? Especially if you consider still taking two primes along that are in the same range - what happend to 3 - max. 4 lenses?<strong><br /></strong><br> If you really don't care about long - then stick with what you have: 10-20, 17-50, 85, 105 macro; it has the benefit of being the cheapest solution since you don't have to purchase anything. </p> <blockquote> <p>My solution was to buy a Canon 500D, a two element diopter that screws on the end of my 80-400mm like a filter.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly what I've been doing (and suggested above). 500D works well on the 70-200 VR too.<br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>get a 1.4x converter, Nikon or Kendo</p> </blockquote> <p>Nikon makes no TC that fits the older 300/4 AF IF-ED lens (and allows AF) - they work with AF-S lenses only (unless you file of the tab that prevents mounting non-AF-S lenses). I used a Kenko 1.5x TC but would recommend to look for a Kenko Pro one instead.<br /> As to the question whether AF is fast enough for bird-in-flight shots? The answer, as usual, is that it depends. Larger, slow moving birds and those with non-erratic flight paths are OK, provided light is good and the background isn't too busy. Anything fast or erratically moving is a lost cause in my experience. As can be expected, adding a TC slows things down even more. Like with all screw-driven AF lenses, the AF-motor in the camera matters too; I don't know how powerful the one in the D7000 is - I used the lens mostly on a D200 (not sure I ever mounted it on a D300).</p> <blockquote> <p>does that mean I get 630mm reach with f5.6</p> </blockquote> <p>Adding a 1.4x TC to a 300mm lens results in 420mm focal length; doing so on a 1.5x crop-factor camera gives the angle-of-view equivalent of 630mm.</p> <blockquote> <p>If you want a 100-300mm f4 zoom then the Sigma is the one with a good reputation but hard to find</p> </blockquote> <p>There are some on the big auction site; one for around $600 (with shipping), another with matching 1.4x extender for $850 (plus shipping). Used 300/4 AF-S lenses cost around $1,000-1,150.</p> <p> </p>