Brian

If I had to make an educated guess on the Macro Lens that Nikon will replace / update, it's the AF 200mm f/4 D Macro Lens. Of course this is just a rumor. NikonRumors.com will be the source of info for this possible rumored lens replacement. Oh here is a YouTube Video with a review of this lens.

1. Good choice. Keep in mind a 24-70 could also serve as a landscape lens. 2. Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a new macro with a focal length beyond 105. Probably 150-200. I would hold off for just a bit more. 3. A D500 with its angle of view change will help with reach. So will a D850 put in crop mode. So maybe me recommending a D850 isn’t off the table. Basically with a D850, you have two cameras built into one. See if your D750 has a DX Mode you might already have that reach without spending a dime. Granted, the edges of the sensor get turned off so you will have less MP, but even if we cut that in half, 12MP is completely do-able Dig through you manual and try a few test shots it’s digital, you can afford to experiment. 4. Realistic Expectations when it comes to noise. It’s more about nailing your exposure than anything. Photographing someone in crappy light isn’t going to make them look good, even if you have $10,000 in camera gear; crappy light is crappy light. If you make your camera struggle, you will see it in the photos. Also, the more pixels you cram into the same physical area on the sensor, the less likely the pixels can soak up light, which helps produce noise. Keep in mind there is a thing called sensor grain and that “noise” you might be seeing isn’t truly noise.

It's under the shooting menu, or camera icon. Look for "Long exposure NR" and "High ISO NR" or something along those lines. Both are set to OFF on my camera. I want to control noise reduction. G.A.S. or N.A.S. is a slippery slope. Honestly, for the current Lord of the Darkness is the Nikon D5, though a D850 isn't bad. Wanna spend $6500?

That light in that photo is really crappy. You aren't giving your camera a chance. That's typical. I should show you noise from my D200. Images "Fell Apart" at ISO 640. 800 was terrible and 1600 was unbearable with that camera. If you are looking for "clean" images at 4000 or 6400, like you would at 200 or 400, that's not the case. ISO 4000 is still 4000. This gives me an idea of a project. I see many people complain about noisy photos, they have no idea just how good modern equipment is. As for the photo, I don't see much noise. I see a soft photo and I'm not sure that is from noise reduction by you or the camera. I turn my camera's High ISO Automatic Noise Reduction to off, or set it really high, to apply like at 256000. (Which I'm never at.) I want to control my noise reduction, not have my camera guess on what is good for the photo.

I don’t like the 16-35. It has weird distortion at 16mm and 35 that cant fully be corrected in post. It’s crap at both ends, in my humble opinion. What is has going for it is you can mount filters and it’s cheaper than the 14-24. Honestly, I’d get a 18-35 FX lens over a 16-35. It’s sharper and is very economical. The main thing that people regret is paying such a high price tag of the 14-24, they never regret buying the lens itself. People have regretted buying the 16-35 and kick themselves for not buying a 14-24. Make sense? So I would get a 14-24, hands down and if the budget is tight, id get a 18-35, which is a surprisingly sharp little lens.

A used 14-24 in good / excellent shape should cost you around $1300. Give or take. Like $1250 - $1300. The lens sells around $1900 new.

IS II. Yes, it makes a difference. Get at least the IS II VERSION. I have a Motto, “Buy it Right - Buy it Once.” Canon just released the newest version, the IS III. If you are going to spend that amount of money, get the latest and greatest. Though the IS II is still a fine lens. Either way, make sure you get the IS II or IS III. With proper technique, it is possible to go down to 1/30th hand held and get decent images. The IS III is a newer stabilization system, and will serve you well with low-light sports photography I have a love affair with my 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Her name is Bertha. I plan on having that Lens for another 10 or so years. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1414599-REG The one thing I will warn you about 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, is that they are around 3lbs / 1.63 kilograms all by themselves. Pro-Grade f/2.8 Glass are usually heavy, though worth every penny.

I know what you are thinking. But I can use f/8 to take a photo, what do you mean it won't work? What happens is that you lose one stop of light when you mount the extender. Since the 70-300 is variable aperture lens, we take the f/5.6 aperture and deduct one stop and that's f/8. At that point, the widest aperture that you can go is f/8. You can go to f/11, f/16 and f/22, but not f/5.6, which is what your camera needs to autofocus as there isn't enough light for it at f/8. Even if you put the lens at 70mm to get f/4, it will automatically stop down to f/8 when you mount the extender. That's why you really want a f/2.8 lens or a f/4 lens with an extender and not a variable aperture one.

7D? Well, using the 1.4 Extender won't work on your camera. It's completely off the table since that body won't focus at f/8. So you could buy the 70-300 L, but there is no extra reach for you down the road. I'd still get the 100-400 L for wildlife. OR since you have a crop body, how about a 70-200 f/4 L lens? Since Gymnastics are usually indoors with crappy gym lighting having a fixed aperture helps greatly. What I mean is the 70-300 is a variable aperture lens, which automatically stops down to f/5.6 when you zoom to 300mm. With the 70-200 f/4, you choose what aperture you want and it stays there, regardless of the focal length. You could be at f/4 at 70mm, 150mm or 200mm. Same thing goes with the more expensive f/2.8 version. I caught this with a 70-200 f/2.8 way back when on my Nikon D300s, which is similar to your 7D. I was standing near 3rd base when I took this shot, which was at f/4: Also this shot was taken just beyond first base: Using a crop body's Angle of View change to your advantage is key. A 70-200 on a Canon 7D will act like a 112mm - 320mm lens.

Oh, if your router uses 10.0.0.1, just use 10.0.0.10 and 10.0.0.20 and still use 255.255.255.0 for the subnet address for both.

Having two computers on the same network segment / subnet is required. So both have to be on 192.168.xx.xx or 10.xx.xx.xx with a Subnet Mask of 255.255.255.0 (For a simple home network.) I'd match this up with your router IP scheme. It's going to start with 192 or 10. Your "Workgroup" name can be anything, but I'd leave it at the default, which is "Workgroup" for both. Then it's just a matter of sharing out folders and giving permissions on said folders. Example: Gateway / Your Router: 192.168.1.1 Computer A - Static IP address (Instead of Auto) IP: 192.168.1.10 Subnet: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: Leave this set to automatically obtain Computer B - Static IP address (Instead of Auto) IP: 192.168.1.20 Subnet: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: Leave this set to automatically obtain Then pick a folder to share out. We can call this folder "Transfer." For simplicity's sake, leave the "Everyone" Permissions intact. Then all you do is create a shortcut with the following path: Computer A's Folder \\192.168.1.10\Transfer. This is why it's important to have a static IP, it keeps things simple. Otherwise you'll have to use the computer's name to get to the folder and sometimes those names can be a bit of a pain to type each time.

Turn OFF all the hybrid sleeps. Hell, keep your computer running and just have it turn off the display. I don't understand this statement? I network Windows 7 and Windows 10 computers all the time. It's better to have the Windows "Pro" editions if you want to network things, but you should be able to setup a simple Workgroup network, thought that kind of thing I don't support around here.

I wouldn't use a 1.4 Teleconverter (Extender) on a 70-300. Image quality will take a big hit, and the aperture blades will automatically stop down to f/8 and that will require a body that can focus using f/8. Usually that's bodies like the Canon 1DX, though I have heard of other Canon bodies being able to AF with this combo. Oh, it will take the latest firmware on your camera body giving the best chance for the 70-300 and EF 1.4x combo to work. In reality, you want a lens that has a fixed aperture of f/2.8 to work the best with Teleconverters. Those fancy lenses aren't cheap and even they will suffer from some image quality hit. What type of sports are you shooting? Is it Little League with kids that you can be on the sidelines or are you up in the stands amongst people? Also, what type of body are you shooting with? A Crop Body? Full Frame? Because with a crop body, you get the benefit of the Angle of View Change, which a 70-300 will act like a 112mm - 480mm lens would on a full frame. Which isn't too bad. If you are on a Full Frame body, I'd recommend somethiing like the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens, heck I'd recommend that lens over a 70-300 for both a crop and full fame body. Most of my Canon friends who shoot Wildlife as a hobby, started out with a 70-300 (non L) on a crop body, and then ended up purchasing the 100-400mm L at some point. I've seen very good images come out of that lens. So in my humble opinion, I wouldn't bother with a 70-300L at $1349 and the 1.4 III Extender; I'd save up a little bit more and go straight to the 100-400mm L. At the end of things, you are only spending $221 more, BUT you aren't taking the Image Quality hit and you get to keep that one stop of light. Plus, I forgot to mention a Focus Speed performance hit with using a TC (Extender) which does make a BIG difference, especially with sports. In reality, a Extender / Teleconverter just isn't a good idea; unless you have $10,000+ lenses that are awesome to begin with that can take the IQ, Focus Speed and Stops of light loss.

Yeah, with the newer monitors and operating systems, it's better to have a newer calibration device. I'm currently using a ColorMunki on my new iMac, and I'm....meh...about what I'm seeing after calibration. (The new iMacs now have a wide-gamut screen.) I know there will be a new OS in the fall and X-Rite is doing a complete refresh of their calibration software (to make it 64-bit) so I might just wait. Hey @Damien Symonds, I'm wondering if "monitor profiles not sticking" threads are due to hibernation issues? Maybe we should start by recommending turning hibernation off first? Before dorking around with profiles and un-installing / re-installing?

Yes, it’s hibernation that is kicking out the calibrated profile. Hibernation creates a snapshot of what’s running on your computer and puts it into a big file. The idea is if you lose power, the hibernation file will reload and you will have a better chance of recovering on where you left off / lost power. The problem is, it’s not fool-proof and doesn’t always get everything, like monitor profiles. Especially if your monitor is listed as “Generic” in the Device Manager, well at least in my experience. Honestly, it would be better to turn off hibernation, delete the hibernation file to recover disk space and purchase a APC UPS (Surge Protector with a Battery) than to use hibernation.

Now for some unsolicited advise for you and anyone that reads this thread, and don't misunderstand me, I'm not being condescending at all. I've been called an Asshole from time to time and I'm not trying be. Here is the thing with Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I suffered from a bad case for years and spent A LOT of money in acquiring it. Some by pure luck, other times by me saving up for things and taking on a second job to get stuff. 10 years ago, I was one tortured soul who really didn't have a life and didn't have a lot of money. Photography was a lifelong hobby of mine that I got back into do help me get out of my rut. I was obsessed with fancy / pro-grade lenses after using a friend's 24-70 for the first time. That single lens put me into the mindset of acquiring gear and thousands of dollars later...I'm able to say I have most of the things that I lusted after way back when. The phrases, "If I only had..." or "I need to buy _________ in order to photograph _________" would normally come out of my mouth and in the long run, actually hold me back. Now I have all that fancy gear, a Nikon D4s, the Nikon Trinity, plus a bunch of other stuff...and you know what? My photos, while looking better than they did with the consumer stuff, still look like they were taken by me. *I* just now have fancy gear and still take lame photos. I've never gone viral, people aren't lined up and obsessing over me with hashtags and I generally don't humblebrag. Hell, crickets chirp most days. LMAO!! All that gear...all that money...still didn't make me a better photographer. I'm once again stuck in a rut and this time, there is nothing to buy or gear to use as an excuse for my shortcomings. I need to improve my craft. Actually, I need to improve my photography and not get caught up in my craft. Saying I used 24mm at f/11 at ISO 3200 while mounted on this tripod and blah-blah-blah, that's not photography. That's craft. Same thing goes with music. Playing a F# Minor over this chord inversion and using this tempo in this key isn't music. That's craft. Same difference. So the reason I'm saying this is don't get caught up in G.A.S. / N.A.S. You asked, My answer: How about mastering your lenses that you have now? Mount a single lens and use only THAT lens for a month. Figure out what it can and can't do. Push your creativity and eye. Try to make your 70-200 work as a macro. Or a 24-70. Figure it out. Granted, it won't be a true macro, but it can be close. I've done it. How about photographing a Sunset? There is more to it than just the lens choice and exposure. It's really about the composition and overall "feel" that you are going for. Do not spend another penny until you have mastered what you currently have. Because trust me, I've done this and still take lame photos. PS: Just buy the damn 14-24 and be happy, you won't regret it.

Manual focusing is a Pain in the Ass. While Zeiss glass is amazing, I will say it again: Manual Focusing is a Pain in the Ass. I really don't pay attention to 3rd party lenses, as I'm a Nikon OEM snob, though Zeiss Glass is well regarded as being excellent. That being said, I have the Nikon Trinity and have shot plenty of sunrises and sunsets, and you know which lens I used the most for that type of thing? My 24-70. The reason is I can mount filters on that lens. One of the downsides to the 14-24 is you'll need to use a special mount / adapter and use drop in (Lee / Conklin) 4x5 filters. As for landscape and manual focusing, you'll have better luck in using a tripod to keep things steady. Just by moving your neck back and for an inch or so, can affect focus. Like I said, MF is a PITA.

Try turning off hibernation. Personally, I would rather have a display blank out after so many minutes and use sleep instead of hibernation. Things can get wacky with hibernation and I've never seen it work well on a desktop. This website has basic instructions, but they really should have swapped step 2 and 1. Start with the second part, then do the first part: https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to/windows-delete-hibernation-file-hiberfil-sys/

Here is a photo taken with my 14-24:

The 14-24 is a legendary lens. I heart mine. Back before Canon shooters had an ultra wide, they would rent a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G and a adaptor ring. It’s that good. Like prime sharp good. That said, controlling distortion takes practice. Moving a few inches here and there can change the edges, but that is normal at 14mm. Bottom Line: If offered, exchange it for a 14-24.

Another thought to the other thought... You could use your Nikon D750 and just do an extreme crop. 24MP, especially if you keep the subject in the center of the frame, should yield good results. So I might rent a 105VR and give it a spin.

One other thought, I wouldn't take that lens to an airport. The TSA would be VERY interested in your lens when it sets off alarms. LOL!! I've also have done some reading on this topic, it's ok to use for an hour or so every now and then, but don't store the lens under your bed.

Answered this question in the other thread. To sum it up my answer: RETURN IT.

Umm...yeah. I'd return it. That guy is trying to off-load the lenses. Your lucky day, indeed. Thorium Oxide that was used in the glass of the lenses of that era and is the usual culprit for the radiation. Thorium Oxide helps cut down on Chromatic Aberration and is no longer used in today's modern lenses. Your average chest X-Ray is about 10 mR/r, and your exposure on a Jet is about 5 mR/r. So, if that's your lens readings it is double or more of what a Chest X-Ray is! Your little one would need to be three (preferably more) feet away from the lens at all times to keep exposure to a minimum. That's why nurses stand a good 5-10 feet away when you go for x-rays, either body or dental. That's also why they put a LEAD cover over you when you go for X-Rays; it limits your body's exposure to unneeded X-Rays. Plus, you are putting that lens up to your eye / head isn't a good thing, in my humble opinion. Radioactive lenses usually have a yellow tint to them, especially the older they are. It is rumored that the cure is exposure to UV Light from the sun over a period of days, which seems to help clear the yellowing. Otherwise you will be reducing the yellow cast in post on every photo. Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a new Macro Lens soon, and something more than 105mm. I'm thinking between 150mm - 200mm. Quite possibly replacing / updating that lens. I was also thinking about a Macro lens, I have a AF 60mm f/2.8 D that never gets used and I don't think a 105 would either. I myself would like a 200mm Macro. Again, I wouldn't have purchased that lens.

Umm...yeah. Especially on a full frame camera. f/1.8 is tough. It’s not like a crop body where you can put it at 1.8 and shoot all the things. That angle of view change is a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you are close to your subject. Try shooting at f/2.5 and see how that works for you. Why f/2.5? That is one stop down from f/1.8. When a person shoots at f/2.8 on a crop body, that’s like shooting at f/4 on a full frame camera. It’s about a stop difference. So that’s the aperture I would start testing with. 1.8, 1.4, 1.2...those aperture settings, you really only have 1/4 or 1/8th of an inch of whether something is in focus or not. Like one eye is sharp and the other is completely soft kind of thing.