Best way to spend $2k in 2018

2»

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,021Moderator
    edited February 2018
    Something you may want to consider is that you will lose a lot of shots when hand-holding the D850 due to it having so many pixels and so showing movement which is not a problem with the D750.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,768Member
    You dont need CF cards for an 810 you put another SD card in a $5 adaptor ..,I have 128 gb SD cards in my CF slots onto which I put RAW (a backup that I have never used) and large basic JPEG onto the SD slot which I use for everything.
  • Capt_SpauldingCapt_Spaulding Posts: 484Member
    Unless there is a specific feature your D750 lacks that is costing you shots, I suggest taking the advice of the community and holding on to your cash. I have a D610 and even with a low end "kit" lens (24-85) it will take embarrassingly sharp images. (e.g. "alligator skin" wrinkles around the eyes of 25 year olds who pride themselves on perfect complexions and fine detail of the dust on subject's glasses.) With a 70-200 f4, it's scary.

    Part of me would love a D850 and I could probably afford one, but I don't think it would improve my images (probably the reverse) and certainly would not make me a better photographer. I plan to spend my D850 money on a trip to the "canyon" parks in Nevada and Utah and a slow drive down the Pacific Coast from Seattle to LA. That has a far better chance of making me a better photographer than any amount of money I could spend on hardware.

    Your D750 is a very good camera. Unless a) it is holding you back or b) you feel compelled to engage in consumption/retail therapy, I recommend holding fast where you are and honing your craft.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,768Member
    The pixel density on the D850 is only the same as a 24MP DX and you dont loose shots due to hand holding that do you......
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,021Moderator
    More than with my D750.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    edited February 2018
    When I read this thread I initially thought "save your money" unless you need something at the wide end. You have a great kit.

    Then I read that you like to shoot weddings (indoors in low light) and you use your 24-70 2.8G most of the time.

    So with your $2,000, I would upgrade to the 24-70 2.8E and get back below $2,000 by selling your G.

    Why? In short, it is the VR. I have the 24-70 2.8E and while I am a typical prime shooter, I bought this because being the guy with the camera, I am often asked to shoot events. If you want sharp photos, this will be important to you. Most of the time, a photo that is not sharp has little to do with the sharpness of the camera or lens and everything to do with the user and their technique. With VR, I am getting sharp shots down to 1/10s almost 100% of the time and often getting sharp shots at 1/4 or 1/2 seconds. I do this by getting as steady as I can, putting my camera on continuous fast (with my D850 I use quiet mode to slow it down a bit) and taking about 10 shots. At 1 or 2 seconds I am almost guaranteed to have at least one in focus. The vibrations caused by the shutter are a non-issue. Also, pressing the shutter button causes vibration that I do see so with a single shot it is an issue, but since I am holding it down and bursting, that is a non-issue after the second shot or so.

    And this trumps all of the sharpness concerns of the G vs E. Plus, you are shooting with a 24 megapixel camera, not 36 or 46 like I am (D800 and D850). And even if you are shooting a 46 megapixel camera, you are shooting weddings, not fashion, so 24 is enough. And except in the extreme corners on the G, both are sharper than 24 megapixels across the frame so the relative sharpness of the respective lenses are irrelevant.

    Except for the VR, which will make a huge difference and is relevant for getting tack sharp images.

    I don't shoot very much with VR. Generally I am shooting with controlled lighting or on a tripod so it is not relevant. But with my 24-70 2.8E and 400 2.8E, it makes a huge difference.

    You can follow the link below for more of my opinions.......(not facts).

    https://www.flickr.com/people/westendfoto/
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    Here is an example where the VR helped me get a shot. It is not the best example, as it is at 70mm at 1/20th of a second. Every shot in a 10 shot burst would typically be sharp in this scenario.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/27863799109/in/dateposted/

    Now if I did not have VR, I would have had to make a different compromise that would have made the shot more difficult. I would want the shutter speed to be about 1/70s or even a little faster. I would then be faces with the following choices:

    1.
    Open up the aperture from f/5.6 to about f/3.5, which means that I am increasing the odds of one of the two people not being in focus and ruining the shot.

    2.
    Increasing the ISO past 12,800. With a D850 I am already pushing the ISO to the edge of what I am comfortable with for this type of photography. With my D800, I am getting uncomfortable at 3200. If I had a D750, my limit might only be something like 8,000 (despite being a 46 megapixel camera, the high ISO performance of the D850 is better than the D750, but I am not sure by how much).

    One can quibble over the numbers, but I hope you get my point. If you are doing event photography, you are battling finding the right balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture. The above example is a fairly tame example. At 1/5th of a second, the ISO could have been 3000 which is fine for a D750 in an event photography scenario.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    PB_PM said:

    Regarding the cameras, you would notice some resoluion difference, but shooting an important event with a camera that you aren’t familiar with can be an issue. I used to shoot with a D800 and went down to the D750. While there are a few times that I miss the extra pixels it’s less often than you’d think. The D750 also works better in low light than the D810, thanks to improved focus sensors, just something else to consider.

    Lenses: The extream corners on the 24-70mm G are softer (at 24mm), but we are talking about the extreme, way outside of the range of focus points, so keep that in mind. The G is sharper overall throughout the zoom range, any review from people who aren’t getting free stuff from Nikon are saying the same thing. Check the lab tests at optical limits (formally known as Photozone). The new lens is way softer between 50-70mm than the old one; primarily between F2.8 and F4. Yikes. I’m sticking with my non-VR, that’s for sure.

    70-200mm F2.8G vs v2. I have used both and currently own the VR2. Personally, I preferred the design of the VR1, it was more comfortable to shoot with. It also didn’t stuffer from focus breathing as much as the VR2 does. Not a big deal for me, since I don’t do a ton of close up work with it. Is the new one sharper, I guess so, since the lab tests say so There wasn’t much to complain about with the first Gen other than more vignetting.

    Hmmm.....not sure I agree with you. Thom is not saying the same thing. Well, he acknowledges that it is stronger at the wide and long end then the middle, but concludes that for regular use it should be considered sharper.

    http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-24-70mm-f28e-af-s-vr.html

    I attribute a high value in Thom's reviews because he always attempts to ascertain what is relevant to a shooter instead of falling into the trap of shooting a flat test chart at 6 feet away (not my type of shooting). I think many photo review sites fall into this trap, even Photography Life, which I do respect as they often acknowledge that field curvature often results in inferior results that are only relevant when shooting test charts.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,768Member
    you do make weddings complicated ....stick it on F8 auto iso and if it goes dark ie inside turn the flash on ...24-70 ?? waste of time not long enough get a 28-300.
    What is a tripod ?? 10 shots to get one in focus ...god I would come back from a wedding with 15,000 shots not 1500 , shots out of focus ..does not happen in my world .... KISS
    You all have a fun time at 2.8 the customers don't appreciate it .
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member

    you do make weddings complicated ....stick it on F8 auto iso and if it goes dark ie inside turn the flash on ...24-70 ?? waste of time not long enough get a 28-300.
    What is a tripod ?? 10 shots to get one in focus ...god I would come back from a wedding with 15,000 shots not 1500 , shots out of focus ..does not happen in my world .... KISS
    You all have a fun time at 2.8 the customers don't appreciate it .

    It is why I don't do photography for the money. My craft would become mediocre.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    edited February 2018

    PB_PM said:

    Regarding the cameras, you would notice some resoluion difference, but shooting an important event with a camera that you aren’t familiar with can be an issue. I used to shoot with a D800 and went down to the D750. While there are a few times that I miss the extra pixels it’s less often than you’d think. The D750 also works better in low light than the D810, thanks to improved focus sensors, just something else to consider.

    Lenses: The extream corners on the 24-70mm G are softer (at 24mm), but we are talking about the extreme, way outside of the range of focus points, so keep that in mind. The G is sharper overall throughout the zoom range, any review from people who aren’t getting free stuff from Nikon are saying the same thing. Check the lab tests at optical limits (formally known as Photozone). The new lens is way softer between 50-70mm than the old one; primarily between F2.8 and F4. Yikes. I’m sticking with my non-VR, that’s for sure.

    70-200mm F2.8G vs v2. I have used both and currently own the VR2. Personally, I preferred the design of the VR1, it was more comfortable to shoot with. It also didn’t stuffer from focus breathing as much as the VR2 does. Not a big deal for me, since I don’t do a ton of close up work with it. Is the new one sharper, I guess so, since the lab tests say so There wasn’t much to complain about with the first Gen other than more vignetting.

    Hmmm.....not sure I agree with you. Thom is not saying the same thing. Well, he acknowledges that it is stronger at the wide and long end then the middle, but concludes that for regular use it should be considered sharper.

    http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-24-70mm-f28e-af-s-vr.html

    I attribute a high value in Thom's reviews because he always attempts to ascertain what is relevant to a shooter instead of falling into the trap of shooting a flat test chart at 6 feet away (not my type of shooting). I think many photo review sites fall into this trap, even Photography Life, which I do respect as they often acknowledge that field curvature often results in inferior results that are only relevant when shooting test charts.
    The more I look at this Optical Limits site, the less impressed I am. Their review of the 105 1.4E got my alarm bells ringing. Their resolution numbers are nearly identical from 1.4 to 5.6 regardless of where you are on the frame. Now I have shot with this lens enough to know that despite almost being in a class of its own, the picture that Optical Limits paints is wrong. While sharp at 1.4, the lens is significantly sharper at 2.8 - not slightly as the review suggests. At 2.8, the corners are not as sharp as the centre as the review suggests.

    Then I noticed that they are testing this on a D3X. They acknowledged this, but really!?! How is this possibly useful to the large number of photographers that use a D8xx camera? Can they not afford a D850 or even a D810? The review was done last year, so I will forgive them for not using a D850, but why would they not use the sharpest sensor available? They are testing a lens, not a camera.

    It is why I keep going back to Thom and Photography Life.

    http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/998-nikkorafs10514ff?start=1
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,945Member
    edited February 2018
    Realize that small group like optical limits (formally known as Photozone), which has been testing lenses for far longer than Nasim (PL), and have used the same reputable and repeatable lab testing method for over 15 years, have to buy or borrow (typical from other users) all the gear they test. Not all sites get freebee lenses and cameras from Nikon or B&H like, Thom and Nasim Mansurov do. That is why they are still shooting with D3X, the site owner bought that stuff (from all the brands they cover, not just Nikon). Sample variation does have an affect on the results, although they do try to test more than one copy most of the time. I cannot comment on that particular review, since they don't mention it.

    By the way, DXO mark which you love so much agrees with Optical Limits.
    https://dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-F28E-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D810__1583_963_175_963
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    edited February 2018
    DXO is a joke, in my opinion.

    Thom doesn’t get anything free from Nikon. I would gladly lend him one of my lenses if he asked. He will be required to do a positive review of one of my financial statements.

    I doubt Nasim does too.

    Optical limits better invest in a D850, or they won’t be reputable for long
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,945Member
    edited February 2018
    Lab tests speak for themselves, rather than personal antidotal feelings. Not a big fan of DXO or lab testing gear myself, but it shows the results are repeatable. If the new lens is weaker on a 24MP and 36MP sensors, using it on a D850 won’t change it. Lets face it, the vast majority of Nikon users are on 24MP sensors (DX/FX) not the D850. That makes the results more relevant to the majority of Nikon DSLR users, whether that meet your personal standard/opioin for reputable or not.

    You mentioned photography life, but ignore the results. His tests show the same thing. At F2.8-4 the non-VR shows higher resolution figures from 24-70mm (in the centre). In the corners and beyond F5.6 the new lens is better. If absolute centre sharpness is important the old lens is better. If you need less field curvature and sharpness stopped down the new lens is better. This exactly match’s what I said. So why the hate?
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    edited February 2018
    PB_PM said:

    Lab tests speak for themselves, rather than personal antidotal feelings. Not a big fan of DXO or lab testing gear myself, but it shows the results are repeatable. If the new lens is weaker on a 24MP and 36MP sensors, using it on a D850 won’t change it. Lets face it, the vast majority of Nikon users are on 24MP sensors (DX/FX) not the D850. That makes the results more relevant to the majority of Nikon DSLR users, whether that meet your personal standard/opioin for reputable or not.

    You mentioned photography life, but ignore the results. His tests show the same thing. At F2.8-4 the non-VR shows higher resolution figures from 24-70mm (in the centre). In the corners and beyond F5.6 the new lens is better. If absolute centre sharpness is important the old lens is better. If you need less field curvature and sharpness stopped down the new lens is better. This exactly match’s what I said. So why the hate?

    Hate? You see hate here? Really? It is just an opinion. Life is to short and most things are too trivial to let hate play a part in anything. My opinion is that I don't think optical limits performed their test in an appropriate manner which has caused them to mis-characterize the 105 1.4E. Oh sure, they said it was a fantastic lens and I agree, but testing it on a low resolution sensor makes the lens look even better than it is if you are not alert to the issue and Optical Limits did not even point that out - as it would have compromised the credibility of their review.

    And my main point on the 24-70 is that both are sharp enough across the frame for a D750 and that the real factor that will influence sharpness in the real world is VR, which the E has and the G does not.

    And regarding Thom, yes he does not do the sorts of optical tests that you describe, but he arrives at an answer that seems right to me and a lot of other people. He does that by taking time, being careful and trying to be honest. I respect that approach. I do also respect the optical tests, but they can be misleading. Shooting a test chart at a certain distance can be misleading. DXO comes up with a nice score, but the score is only useful if the parameters that comprise the score are important to me (distortion is certainly not). And DXO does not really disclose their test process so it is not reproducible. So it may look like the scientific method, but it is not. Nothing wrong with that, just understand it when you evaluated the testor.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,945Member
    edited February 2018



    Hate? You see hate here? Really? It is just an opinion. Life is to short and most things are too trivial to let hate play a part in anything. My opinion is that I don't think optical limits performed their test in an appropriate manner which has caused them to mis-characterize the 105 1.4E.

    Hate might not have been the best choice of words. In any case, again the results match those from others. Every lab test I've seen agrees with Optical Limits.

    We can talk about liking the look or feel of an image from a lens, but that is different from lab tests, agreed? That is why I mentioned earlier in the thread that some of the best lenses you can buy today are used lenses from the 1980's and mid-late 2000's. Great lenses like the 180mm F2.8D, for example. I also really like the 85mm F1.4D, for the look it makes. Are the newer G models better in lab tests, yeah, doesn't make I like the look they create. I suspect the same could be said of lenses like the 58mm F1.4G and 105mm F1.4E. It is part of the reason I always say, newer doesn't mean better, because we as photographers are often looking at things from a creative perspective, not just hard numbers on a page.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • retreadretread Posts: 508Member
    edited February 2018
    When I entered the digital age with a D5100 I used a 55mm f1.2 I purchased in 1967 with my first film Nikons. The D5100 had no support for it but I got by just looking at the screen and making changes form there. I just loved the color shooting stage events. DOF almost paper thin.

    Now I have cameras that will meter with it and should get it out again. Often think fondly of it.
    Post edited by retread on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    PB_PM said:



    Hate? You see hate here? Really? It is just an opinion. Life is to short and most things are too trivial to let hate play a part in anything. My opinion is that I don't think optical limits performed their test in an appropriate manner which has caused them to mis-characterize the 105 1.4E.

    Hate might not have been the best choice of words. In any case, again the results match those from others. Every lab test I've seen agrees with Optical Limits.

    We can talk about liking the look or feel of an image from a lens, but that is different from lab tests, agreed? That is why I mentioned earlier in the thread that some of the best lenses you can buy today are used lenses from the 1980's and mid-late 2000's. Great lenses like the 180mm F2.8D, for example. I also really like the 85mm F1.4D, for the look it makes. Are the newer G models better in lab tests, yeah, doesn't make I like the look they create. I suspect the same could be said of lenses like the 58mm F1.4G and 105mm F1.4E. It is part of the reason I always say, newer doesn't mean better, because we as photographers are often looking at things from a creative perspective, not just hard numbers on a page.
    OK, I will let the hate go. I do know you often stretch that kind of stuff a little, so you were already forgiven. I just didn't want other readers that don't know us thinking that.

    I know what you mean by the look and feel. My 50 1.2 AIS is a favorite when shot wide open on certain subjects for that reason. I also enjoy the 135 DC 2.0, but I find myself reaching for the 105 1.4E now. I will keep the 135 for the look and feel. But the 50 1.4G and 85 1.4G are for sale.

    There is no sacrifice anywhere on the 105 - I feel that it is almost as good as my 400 2.8E. I have bought the 58 1.4G as an experiment. Yes, it is little soft wide open, but it is pretty sharp when stopped down and I definitely like the look and feel. It feels closer to my 105 than my 85 in that regard. However, I am not sure if I believe that yet. I need to shoot it more.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    edited February 2018
    PB_PM said:



    Hate? You see hate here? Really? It is just an opinion. Life is to short and most things are too trivial to let hate play a part in anything. My opinion is that I don't think optical limits performed their test in an appropriate manner which has caused them to mis-characterize the 105 1.4E.

    Hate might not have been the best choice of words. In any case, again the results match those from others. Every lab test I've seen agrees with Optical Limits.

    Here is what I think of the 24-70 G vs E when I look at the following reviews. It is a summary, so there is lots of room for disagreement when looking at the details:

    Photography Life:

    The E is better across the frame at every aperture and focal length. At 5.6 or less it is better. Wide open, the G is sharper in the centre. Results are a little more nuanced then this when you compare the different focal lengths. Note that Photography Life tested one lens at something less than infinity but not at a minimum focus distance. Given that I have been investigating purchasing the Imatest system and therefore have an idea how it works, I would say 10 - 20 feet depending on the focal length - but that is just a rough guess.

    The Lensrentals review suggests the same except at 70mm, where the E is better at all apertures even in the centre. They use 10 copies and rotate each lens 90 degrees taking a sample with each rotation. I think that this is an excellent strategy. However, they test at infinity (using an optical bench, not a camera). I think that infinity is not very realistic for a lens like this FOR MY USE, which is events. If this is your general purpose landscape and architecture lens, then maybe infinity is not far off realistic.

    The Photozone review has a "negative tone" as opposed to the more upbeat tones of the Photography Life and Lensrental reviews. I should also point out that the Lensrentals reviews shows strong performance at 70 mm and the Photozone review shows weak performance. The photozone review is also misleading given that the resolution starts at 1300lw/ph instead of 0 like Photography Life, which suggests that the centre is almost twice as sharp at the extreme, instead of the actual 40%. Statisticians often cite this as a way to make statistics lie. Now perhaps the Photozone is more realistic than the Lensrentals because it is shot at a realistic distance.

    However, I have a story to tell.

    About a week after I bought my 24-70 2.8E, I set it up on a tripod with my D800 and aimed it at a target about 6 feet away and snapped away at 2.8. Think a head and shoulder shot at 70mm. I wondered how much better my 85 1.4G was and shot a comparison. The results surprised me as the zoom was better - a lot better. The 85 was at 1.4 so I thought to myself "it must be pretty soft at 1.4" so I tried it at 5.6.

    The results floored me. The E at 70mm and 2.8 was sharper than my 85 at 5.6. Not a lot at 5.6, but still significant. I spent hours trying the comparison in different ways including varying the distance thinking that I screwed up but always ending up with the same results. I sent the 85 off to Nikon the next week complaining of a defective lens, carefully describing the results with copies of the test shots. It came back a few weeks later with a statement from Nikon saying it was fine with nothing required. After trying different lenses in the same situation I have come to the conclusion that my 85 is fine and that the 24-70 2.8E is sharp.

    Given sample variation, perhaps I have a week 85, albeit within norms, and a strong 24-70, albeit within norms. However, nobody is going to tell me that MY 24-70 2.8E is not sharp.

    So you can appreciate how I might find the Photozone review suspect. The 85 1.4G is no slouch - mine is for sale, do you want it?

    In summary:

    In my opinion, if I am shooting portraiture, then I will prefer the G. But you don't buy this lens to shoot portraiture. I would buy something like a 85 1.8G or better for that. I buy this lens to shoot events where the light is low and VR will be big help. So I am still picking the E (and in fact I did as I own the E). Note that I am not using this lens for landscapes or architecture. I have other lenses for that. However, if I did, I would still pick the E for more consistent corner to corner performance. Especially considering that I would likely be using a tripod at 5.6 or 8.0.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    retread said:

    When I entered the digital age with a D5100 I used a 55mm f1.2 I purchased in 1967 with my first film Nikons. The D5100 had no support for it but I got by just looking at the screen and making changes form there. I just loved the color shooting stage events. DOF almost paper thin.

    Now I have cameras that will meter with it and should get it out again. Often think fondly of it.

    I would love to get my hands on a copy of that lens. Sounds sweet.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,901Member
    I have another bone to pick with Photozone (aka Optical Limits).

    Look at the difference in the Imatest results on the Photozone and Photography Life sites.

    https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-105mm-f1-4e

    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/998-nikkorafs10514ff?start=1

    On the Photography Life Imatest result, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0 and 11.0 are 2290, 2917, 3240, 3226, 2985, 2590 and 2203 respectively (in the centre). The Photozone results are 3810, 4009, 4024, 4030, 3992, 3801 and 3403.

    So the Photozone test is suggesting that the 105 is almost equally sharp at 5.6 or wider.

    The Photography Life test is suggesting that maximum sharpness is achieved at f/2.8, but that while still sharp, 1.4 and 5.6 are significantly less sharp.

    Now I have taken enough shots with this lens to know that the Photography Life conclusion is roughly correct and that the Photozone test is WRONG.

    I wondered how it was possible that the Photozone test is wrong. And then I noticed that they used a D3X for the test, which is 24mp. Photography Life used a D810 at 36mp. There may be other differences. The gross numbers are much different, despite both being on Imatest. But there are different Imatest charts. Perhaps this is just a calibration issue. They may have shot it at a different distance.

    But I think the most likely conclusion is that Photozone was testing the sharpness of the D3X using a lens that exceeded it in sharpness, while Photography Life was actually testing the lens because the sensor was not the limiting factor.

    This creates a huge credibility issue on Photozone's part.

    It may be that at 5.6, the limiting factor is the D810, but at least it is sharp enough to discern between 1.4 and 5.6.

    I can't think of any other explanation, but if someone thinks that they have one, I would love to hear it.

    This is not a trivial matter. The Photozone results suggest that I should never worry about sharpness, just about depth of field.

    The Photography Life results tell me that I will get sharp shots almost across the frame at 1.4 unlike other Nikon lens except the telephotos (and the 28 1.4 which I just bought, which is almost, but not quite, as good as the 105).

    But the Photography Life results also gives me other information. If I want the centre to be insanely supertelephoto sharp in the centre, stop down to 2.8. If I want the best across the frame performance, stop down to f/4.0 or f/5.6. Don't bother stopping down past f/4.0 unless I need depth of field. This is very practical information that does not exist in the Photozone review.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,035Member
    edited February 2018
    I would pick up an ultrawide zoom lens and save the rest of your $$. You have great gear already - there's very little to be gained by "upgrading" it.

    I've made very respectable 28x40" prints from a D5500 and a 70-200 - your stuff will do anything you need.
    Post edited by mhedges on
Sign In or Register to comment.