Look here:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2962

To change your avatar

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2451

Oh, and can anyone tell me how to get a pic in my profile? I don't seem to have that option with "Edit Profile" is selected???

I have the Nikkor lens listed above. I will not lock on to anything, the motor will run the focus to both ends of the spectrum until you release the button. The AF Switch is set to M/A and not to M. The Focus Mode Selector on the front of the camera body is set to S, (I have tried in C as well). I have read some other threads on the net that state the retainer clip for the front glass may be loose, mine is tight. I have also seen that they have stated that one of the 6 screws may be loose, mine are tight. Just curious if anyone may have a fix or may have had this issue?

70-300mm VR is the only one I would see as a possibility. It could be the AF Select (change to spot like HF said) and use the center spot. I would try the latter first before another lens. AF deals more with the camera and not the lens unless you do go for a f/4 or f/2.8. When my 70-300vr starts to hunt alot I changed everything to single servo, center focus point and spot metering. If I have the 3d 51-pt on it does go bonkers in low light.

HF: Have you actually shot all those?

Consider the new 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX from nikkor.

For the range you mentioned the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens would probably be suitable.

For low light, maybe the newer lenses will focus better .. or get a newer camera which has a better autofocus system? the D3200, D5200 seems nice.

Also try using the spot focus with the camera set at the center focus point, which is usually the most accurate focus sensor.

PS its nice too see my old pictures from early on in the thread! .. See the dragonfly in flight photo? with challenging subjects .. Manual is the way to go.. Maybe suggest that she try manual focus ..

PPS what about the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc. seems like a good option.

What you are asking for really doesn't exist, short of using a higher end camera body (D600/D800/D4). The only consumer zooms that don't weigh a ton are the 55-300 VR, and 70-300mm VR, both of which are variable aperture and wont solve the current problems your wife is dealing with.

Anything cheaper? :)

Sounds like the new 70-200 f4 would be perfect.

Warming over an old thread with a new question:

We just got back from Antarctica. My wife shoots a D90, and the only thing she wanted to shoot was the 55-300mm kit lens. Ok, fine. She uses autofocus and always will. She was annoyed that as soon as the light wasn't perfect, or as soon as the background grew complex, the 55-300mm started to hunt.

I was about as shocked as the dude in "Casablanca" was to find out the gambling was going on at Rick's. I offered her any/all of my primes, but she only wants to use a zoom lens. The 200-400mm I brought along was too heavy for her to handhold for any length of time. So she needs a new piece of glass and I need a suggestion as to what to get her (yes I'll be selling the 55-300 to help finance it).

REQUIREMENTS
--Something that zooms she can handhold for a 1-2 hour stretch
--Something that won't hunt in full-AF mode around f/5.6 to f/8 in light that isn't horrible but isn't perfect.

DON'T CARE ABOUT:
--Great IQ. She's going to be posting 2MB JPEG files on the Internet.
--VR

Yes I'd like nice IQ, yes I'd like VR, but I don't want to pay for it. There are a wide array of choices (with the new 70-200 f/4 at the very edge of the price range) but all I really want is "zoom, doesn't hunt". Maybe if IQ is nbd, a third-party solution is the way to go?

Opinions?

All the lenses you have will work with the D800 as there is a setting on the camera which detects which lenses are full frame (FX) and which are 1.5 crop(DX). This being said, you will need to buy the best lenses to get the best results. Because the D800 has such a high megapixel rate if you use cheap lenses it will show every flaw in your images. PM me if you need more help. theoldnikonian

I agree with SquamishPhoto although the difference is slight.

I think you have it backwards, Tord. The D600 should be a lot cleaner with noise than the D700 and the D800 has greater DR than the D600.

I agree with DaveyJ fully, although I own a D600!

Against the D600 comes the dust issue (dust appears very easily on the sensor, probably due to a design fault (according to Lens Rentals) - and that dust is not that easy to clean off), slightly noisier shots than either the D700, or the D800. The AF sensor is far better than the D700, but not quite comparable with the D800's.

The rest is just perfect for me, as it weighs quite a bit less than either the D700, or the D800.

The results, when shooting is superb, far outshining any APS-C/DX I've owned, or have tried (I come from Pentax K-5, which shares a lot of details with D7000, including the sensor, and I have a D3200).

So it doesn't resolve quite as tiny details as the D800, but it has few peers when it comes to dynamic range - some say it is better than the D800 in that respect.

I owned a D700 and sold it because I got a very high offer. It didn't have video and the guys at my business avoided taking it out to photograph with. The D7000 has been AWESOME for RESULTS. I looked very closely at the D600. The turnoffs to me were too numerous. But it does have video. If you are CERTAIN that video is NOT what you want, then the D700 is an excellent choice. I base this comment a lot on price. Lower the D600 price substantially and I would say buy that.

Awhile back DigitalRev did a vid about bad glass on a good body vs good glass on a bad body. Short verdict was good glass always wins.

I would tend to agree.

I would also add, GOOD LIGHT and good glass can produce fantastic results even on the older, less capable bodies. A decent lens and the right light with even a lowly body like a D40 can make some stunning images.

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

I am with you as far as my own personal purchases go, tcole.

Only problem for me, is that my money doesn't go as far as my eyes tell me it needs to ;-)

Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

AA is indeed famous for his landscapes but early in his career, he could not support his family, solely with his creative work. Like many "creative " photographers he did "commercial" photography and like most commercial photographers, he took whatever work he could get and that included portraiture, see Ansel Adams an Autobiography

sevencrossing said:
Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Yes, I have mispoken....what I meant to say, was, his landscapes generally did not include people....and I believe this was quite intentional in sharing the scene as he saw it. It was to my understanding, the importance in his work was on the natural resources in the landscapes and the portraits he did snap were of far less importance. This is only my understanding and I could be in error here as well. But my knowledge is based on discussions from years ago..

Thanks sevencrossing..

msmoto said:
Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. ........ he made little attempt to photograph people.......Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. No digital, no computers capable of what we can do today, and most important, his passion was the landscape. While his images are the highest form of photographic art, he made little attempt to photograph people.

If one is a "paparazzi" and is interested in recording life, then the camera's capabilities become very important. The high ISO, rapid frame rates, rapid interchangeability of lenses, and portability of the camera body are in some cases critical. So, in one senses asking which is more important is like asking which is more important in the car...the engine or the transmission....

Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

For me? I believe in lenses. Fast glass.

I took a note from reading about Ansel Adams some years back and it made sense to me. He said, all other things being equal, the lens is the most important. If it does not get through the glass, you'll never see it on the image.

As an example, I bought the Nikon 70-200mm ED VR II f/2.8 early in 2012. Fast glass. In the middle of shooting a season of local baseball, I could suddenly see very detailed fine dust/dirt particles in my images just as my eye did as the players moved or from the catchers glove. Others were just as amazed at the 'new' images.

Before that I was using an f/4.5 Nikon zoom/tele. Both good lenses, but the VR II f2/8 internal zoom was better from all my reading and seeing it could be f/2.8 through its focal range was something to be said.

I've the same experience with my Micro Nikkor 60mm and two other very good lenses.

Fast glass rules for me as I love hearing people's breath being taken in at the sight of my pictures. :-) It just makes a good camera better.

I'll get a new body in 2013. My investments in glass that I have made will only improve even more then.

I'm up for anything. Looking more for comparisons though.

I have one, although i have nothing to base it off of as im new to photography. I really like it though. I could take some shots with it and upload them to my flickr if you'd like.