Brian

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.

It's not too shabby. Are you budgeting for a new display as well? Here seems to be Dell's latest and greatest Ultrasharp 24" ISP=Based Monitor. I would use what is called a "DisplayPort" cable for the best results and wouldn't use the traditional 15-pin blue VGA port. That computer has a DisplayPort on the back, it's the weird looking HDMI port.

The post above yours still applies. Intel i7 CPU 16GB RAM or more 1TB HD or more A video card that has its own dedicated video memory. 2GB - 4GB is fine. Plenty of USB 3.0 Ports I like Windows 10 Pro, but I'm a power user. Don't worry so much about the new Intel i9 CPU chips that have just been released. Photoshop really doesn't pay attention to the stuff that makes a i9 so fast. In fact, there is only about a 5-7% performance boost between a i5 and i7 CPU. Why do I recommend a i7 then? I build my computers with a 5-7 year time-frame in mind. While an i5 will be "fine" for the average user, and those who can't afford the $200 difference, I feel a i7 might be better in the long run, especially if you hold onto your computers around 7 years or so, like me. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT GET SUCKERED INTO A 256GB SSD (MAIN) HD. Pay attention to those fine details in the technical specifications.

For the main "Macintosh HD" drive, yes. As far as your external drive? Probably not. Time Machine usually ignores external drives, which is a good thing. You don't want Time Machine backing up your Time Machine Drive to itself. That would be bad. If you are really concerned about your main external HD that has all your photos, make a duplicate of it to another EHD and keep that EHD off site.

A1 - Continuous AF - Release Priority. That setting allows the camera to take the photo, whether it's in focus or not. Personally, I have a much higher keeper rate when both are set to Focus Priority. Why not try setting both to Focus Priority and really test that 85mm before we get crazy trying to fine-tune that lens. Use an Aperture of f/8 and take random shots. Random stuff. Stuff that is close-up and other photos that have depth. I want to see exactly where the focus is falling off. Post some examples. Also, use Single Point AF and manually select your AF Point. This way we can see what you are choosing to focus on and go from there.

Before you start messing with AF Fine Tune, let's take a look at your Autofocus Settings. Head to the custom setting menu (Pencil Icon) and select Autofocus. What are A1 and A2 set to? There should be a few choices in each.

I would head to device manager, find the mouse in the list and right-click / uninstall it. Yes, I know this will cause the mouse to stop working, LOL!! Simply pull the mouse's cord out of the USB socket, wait about 10-15 seconds and insert it. The driver should re-install.

Is this a USB mouse?

Transfer should be unchecked or off.

Well, I don't want to turn you off from using f/2.8 altogether, there is a time and place to use it, but I find when shooting someone with glasses is on of those times that you don't. As far as your camera, it is a different metering system. Maybe it needs to be tweaked.

Hmm...this is a tough one. The problem is you are probably focused on the eyes, and in this case there is a lot of contrast swing with the dark frame on the glasses. So the camera is locking onto the frame, which isn't helping things, since they are on a different focal plane than his eyes. His shirt collar is in the same general area as the frames. That's why the collar point on the (camera) right is just as sharp as the glasses. Combine that with you being a good distance away makes the camera not see they eyes, because as far as it's concerned, they are two black fuzzy dots. Using f/2.8 along with 1/200th is tough on a Full Frame Camera. I would have probably been higher on the shutter speed maybe 1/250th or even 1/320th. I'm never at f/2.8 on my Full Frame Nikons. F/2.8 will bite you. Lowest I try to go is f/3.2, but I'm mostly at f/4 for a shot like this. When I shot a crop body, I was always at f/2.8 because it behaves like f/4 on a full frame body, due to the angle of view change that you get with the smaller sensor. I know people think you need to be wide open to get that background blurry, but that's only one part of the recipe. You have a 70-200 and something called compression at your disposal that you can use to your advantage. Had you zoomed into your subject, say 180mm to 200mm, OR had him take a few steps forward, you could have sucked in the background to make it blurry and still used f/4. Now for the noise. Your 5DMK2 was 21.1MP and the 5D Mark IV is 30.4MP. What is happening in you are cramming in an additional 10 Megapixels in the same physical area, which results in more noise. Plus, they are two different sensors and you are noticing things more. So yes, it's very plausible that a 5D Mark IV is noiser than your II. That said, you can go A LOT higher ISO-wise and still get a decent image. Plus the focusing system in the Mark IV is way better than the II. Bottom Line: This shot is acceptable for what it is. It will work fine as a 4x6 print or even a 5x7. If you are looking to do a heavy crop or do a large print, Damien will have to input his thoughts.

This is what I have: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660321-REG/Manfrotto_496RC2_496RC2_Compact_Ball_Head.html What I do is leave the Ball Head slightly loose, meaning you want some resistance but not too much and you don't want things to flop over. I call this "Freestyle Method." You can move in all sorts of directions while mounted on a monopod.

I would invest in a monopod and a ball head. I've also found that going twice the shutter speed is better with digital. So if you are at 200mm, your SS should be 1/500 or more.

I just noticed something!! What version of the 24-70 are you using? The older / original Canon 24-70? Or the newer Version II? Or is it a Tamron / Sigma? The reason I ask is the original Canon 24-70 produces images like this, especially at 24mm and 70mm. I know several photographers in real life who can not trust the original Canon 24-70 on paid gigs. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Version II USM Lens fixed a lot of quirks that the original had.

Focus and recomposing is tricky. You can't move that much, as we are only talking a few inches of you moving. If you really wanted them both sharp, I would have been around f/5.6. Maybe even as far as f/8...but I'm more at f/5.6 for these shots. You could have tried f/6.3 or f/7.1 too. Don't worry about the background being blurry and wanting to use f/4 or f/3.5. The reason is, and it looks like you used your 70-200, is to use compression to your advantage, meaning you want to take a few steps back and zoom in to suck in the background, which will help blur things and maintain enough DoF to get both relatively sharp. Also, what Shutter Speed were you at? What focus mode?

What lens do you use in the studio? A prime or a zoom? Traditionally, prime lenses are always a tad sharper than zooms. Also, you are dealing with natural light, which is pretty even in this photo as there isn't a huge contrast swing to help define things. I agree with Damien, this photo is fine.