MJL

I do wonder if Nikon has any repair facilities in Mexico or Canada. 

 

Nikon has ONE service centre in Canada and it is 4,000 Km from me.  Last time I send in a camera with a mic for them to check per their request - first, they lost my mic in their shop and then they return the camera to a dealer 900 Km away from me.  It took countless phone call, e-mail and about three months to resolve.

 

 

PS: Both Canon and Sony also have only ONE service centre in Canada.  Sony has asked me to send in a camera for cleaning which cost $40+ to ship.  My local camera repair guy did that in half day for the same amount of money.

One of the best time to enjoy a convertible with the 14-24!

In general, 85 mm for single head and shoulder, 50 mm for single waist up or group of 3-4.  Both Nikon and Zesis make excellent portrait lens.  f/1.4 versions are excellent for candid shot or manual focus, but f/2 versions are also great and easier on budget.

I think the problem could be a combination of AF mode & slow lens, i.e. either the lens is too dark for the camera to focus correctly (low contrast on the face) or the system try to hunt for a focus point on a fast moving subject in AF-S mode.  I mainly use AF-C mode and a f/2.8 lens shot through the plexiglass head on.

 

This pix was taken with a D500, Sigma 135-300/2.8 @ f/4.5, 1/1250, ISO 5000.

Oh, I see your sample now.  The high ISO doesn't help on facial details.  You got a way better face shot than mine.

If the subject is centred properly, it could be not easy to spot the distortion.

This sample was taken with D2X a while back.

AF speed definitely depends on the camera body as well.  With the same lens, my D500 will auto focus faster than D800.  I have the same experience with other brands of camera.

 

Get a f/2.8 lens will allow you manual focus easier when the subject has not enough contrast (car body) or too dim (wildlife in shade) for many AF systems.

I can still use my D2X for publication purpose.  The 747 was shot with the Tamron 135-600 zoom and the kidrobot with Nikkor 55 mm Micro.

I have used Zenit 35mm film SLR some years ago and the lens image quality are quite good.  I still have a MC-MTO-11 1000mm f/10 mirror lens and below is a squirrel shot with my D800.

 

 

I also own a set of Kiev 88 120 film camera and done a comparison between their 60 mm and Nikkor 55 mm.  You can judge it from the sample below.

 

My trusty Kiev 88 with 1000 mm mirror lens.

Monopod with "feet" is better in general, but it make the monopod bulkier to carry.  Some "feet" are also better in construction, size and use.  Definitely recommend to try it out to see whether it will fit your need.

I purchased this lens not only for its' rectilinear & low distortion design but also for the curiosity of a "designed and made" in China lens.Good:* The construction, material, finish and handling in par with Leitz or Zeiss lenses.* It is close to zero in distortion. See 1st & 2nd photo.* Smallest, lighest and least expansive rectilinear UWA with f/2.8.* Impressive IQ from f/5.6 and above.Bad:* Extreme vignetting at f/2.8 on a FX D800. See 4th photo.* Overall soft IQ at f/2.8. See 3rd photo.Bottom line:* At f/2.8 or f/4, its' IQ cannot match the classic Nikkor 14-24 on FX or a Zeiss 12 mm Touit (see 5th photo) on mirroless, despite the shorter focal lenght & lower distortion.

Click here to view the lens

I use an older style Crumpler Karachi Outpost Large or Kata BUG-255 UL backpack to carry my Tamron 150-600 on a camera body plus monopod.  They are also big enough to hold a Sigma 135-300/2.8 with a camera body.

 

Unfortunately both backpacks are out of production now.

The UV filter has mostly gone the way of the dodo bird. It's not really a necessity for what it filters but more for what it protects. Namely, the front lens element. Photographers can argue all day about the wisdom of using UV filters and many pros (and wannabe pros) will say that they never use a UV (or NC) filter at all because it detracts from their camera's image quality. Maybe I would too if I were on an equipment expense account. It's certainly not necessary to actually filter UV rays.

 

Personally, I don't give it a whole lot of thought... unless I'm buying a news lens. Then, I always get a sparkling new Nikon NC (not UV) filter to go with it. I can't remember the last time I bought a UV filter.

 

--Ron

Same here.  I stop using UV or skylight filters ever since switched into digital, but "quality" multi coated clear filters stay on my lenses just for protection again the elements & impact.  Dropped my (metal barrel) lenses a few times throughout the years and fortunately only scarificed the filters.  Unsure about the mostly plastic body lenses of today though.

I was mucking around with camera equipment as a subject couple years ago and this is a Nikon one.

This one was on Pentax stuff with a D800.