Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (III)

I converted this pic over to black and white after over exposing the shot.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LBXD​wX

That looks nice

Tragedy

Windansea, La Jolla

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MDkP​2R

My nearly acquired Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8d ED 2 ring version.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MuFL​bm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LHnp​d6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MuFJ​oJ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MuFG​mN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/M7kF​Jb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/M7kG​2A

very nice. What's the MFD on that lens? some of those look pretty close up

smythie wrote in post #18142266
very nice. What's the MFD on that lens? some of those look pretty close up

Is a tricky lens because the lens is known to back focusing at 200mm with a shooting distance under 10ft. The official MFD is about 5ft, the lens macro range BUT it is not usable if the focal length is beyond 155mm because of the back focusing issue. Nikon recommends you to use Liveview or manual focusing if you need to shoot at the longer end at the lens's near MFD.

With my copy, I actually spent days to physically calibrate it in order to reduce the back focusing at 200mm, with a shooting distance beyond and under 10ft. This involves with physically rotating and changing the front element position. Through trials and errors (couple of hundreds of test shots ), I managed to get the lens tack sharp wide open under all focal lengths. And only back focusing about 1 inches behind the subject at 200mm, under 10ft. Once the distance is beyond 12ft, bang, tack sharp at 200mm. Other than the well documented back focusing issues, this lens is pro.

Wow! that sounds quite involved. Your results are really good though

smythie wrote in post #18142298
Wow! that sounds quite involved. Your results are really good though

True but my alternative would be 70-200 vr or any of the older Sigma 70-200 without OS. $900 that I don't have. I only paid $460 for it. Originally, I wanted to remove the front element in order to clean the lens. The lens is pretty old based on the serial number. However, you can still buy it new from Nikon for over $1200. Not sure why would anyone buy it new when they can get something that would work correctly right out of the box and more modern.

As usual, with any old lens I buy, I try to see if I can clean it and to refurbish myself. By the time I managed to remove the front element to clean the lens interior, I have already misaligned the lens's focusing position.....because the lens focuses through moving the front element away and towards the senor. So, I have learned how the lens calibrate the focusing accuracy in relation how the lens is back focusing and etc. Eventually, I found another position that would get everything sharp wide open. The back focusing at 200mm is inevitable (is the way how the lens is designed and how it focuses). I can make it sharp but then sharpness at 80mm is greatly compromised.

So I am a long time Canon user and have been thinking about switching to Nikon for some time now. I don't dislike Canon, in fact I'm worried I may regret it. The grass is always greener syndrome I really like my Canon gear.

I owned 2 bodies, a crop and FF since about 2008 and recently sold my 5D3. I still have my 7D2. I want to go continue being a single body owner as my needs and shooting interests have changed. I'm more into birding/wildlife now. My intent was to pick up a FF and sell the 7D2. The 50 megapixel bodies are too much for me. The 5D4 at 30 will not compensate to the loss of reach going from a crop to a FF. The 1DX 11 which I would love to have is even worse at 20 megapixels. I don't see longer than 400mm lenses in my future.

My current birding is the 7D2 and the 100-400 II which is a super combo and has done me well. I did not shoot for a few months and went out the other day and nailed BIF. That is not the issue. The 7D2 while excellent but does not offer Canon's best AF like the 1DX line and I don't we will ever see it in the prosumer line. I have pumping tons of money into since 2005 and I'm kinda of a little put off by that. I'd even spend a lot more on a crop body if they offered pro level AF.

Several months ago I went to a local camera store and tried out the D500 and the 200-500. The lens was OK but not snappy enough for me. Loved the body. When focus locked it tracked exceptionally well. So I am thinking about the newer 80-400 as the camera store told me it was close to my Canon 100-400 performance level.

So I'm looking it and the D500 and 16-80 kit lens. It is tough because I don't know a lot about Nikon but I have heard good things about that kit lens. I have owned kit lenses and usually sell them and upgrade. It seems sharp enough and as long as there is not bad distortion at 16mm I'd be happy.

So black Friday starts tomorrow and if I see a good deal I may just do it. Still torn as I do like my Canon gear. I don't struggle with AF but I sure would like to get to that next level. One advantage is my best friend and travel buddy shoots Nikon so I and he would have access to more lenses. I guess I'm kinda looking for both sides of advice because there will be a financial hit. However since I will only need 3 to 4 lenses to make this I can sell my Canon gear and cover it all.

I do have a question. I tried to download a D500 manual but you have to pay. For continuous tracking is there a button on the back of the body (or elsewhere) to initiate AF leaving the shutter button for firing the shutters?

I haven't seen any review state that the 80-400 was better than the 200-500 in any way other than maybe build quality. If you really like the 100-400 II there isn't really anything from Nikon or available for Nikon which matches it.

There is an AF-ON button on the back of the body and custom functions will allow the same BBF functionality you enjoy on Canons.

Really strange that you have to pay to download a manual. That doesn't sound right. I was able to download it from here with no issue.

The D500 sounds like a great body to me but I'm not sure if you're going to get much better AF than you already have thanks to the available lenses in the price range you're looking at. Possibly similar though. Just my opinion

I'm in a similar situation(kind off) my weapons of choice if I could summon up the gods/godesses of money, would be a D7200 with a ED 300mm f4 AFD(the none AFS version) I dont need a zoom as all my photography is at a more or less fixed distance, and that lens is stella and sharp as well - a sharp thing supping a sharp drink


P.

smythie wrote in post #18192809
I haven't seen any review state that the 80-400 was better than the 200-500 in any way other than maybe build quality. If you really like the 100-400 II there isn't really anything from Nikon or available for Nikon which matches it.

There is an AF-ON button on the back of the body and custom functions will allow the same BBF functionality you enjoy on Canons.

Really strange that you have to pay to download a manual. That doesn't sound right. I was able to download it from here with no issue.

The D500 sounds like a great body to me but I'm not sure if you're going to get much better AF than you already have thanks to the available lenses in the price range you're looking at. Possibly similar though. Just my opinion

Thanks for the link, input and info. Lot's of thinking to do.

Pagman wrote in post #18192843
I'm in a similar situation(kind off) my weapons of choice if I could summon up the gods/godesses of money, would be a D7200 with a ED 300mm f4 AFD(the none AFS version) I dont need a zoom as all my photography is at a more or less fixed distance, and that lens is stella and sharp as well - a sharp thing supping a sharp drink


P.

I started out with a Canon 300L F4 IS. If Canon had an affordable 400 with IS would have purchased it over the 100-400 II.