Tamron 150-600 ... very good lens, just wanted better.
Nikon 300 f2.8 VRII ... superb lens but fell into the wildlife trap of needing longer.
Nikon 400 f2.8 AF-S ... as above but still often regret selling it.
Nikon 500 f4 VR & 300 VR PF ... gives me the 'better' I wanted
In theory yes but you might want to research whether it will need a firmware update to be compatible with the camera.
Not quite, but kids long gone, house long ago paid for and business sold ... you get the drift
One of the risks of buying 3rd-party lenses, new cameras sometimes surprisingly seem designed to encourage users to buy OEM lenses ... however 3rd-party manufacturers are wise to this and will charge for a firmware update to make the lens compatible.
Get the old guy to do it for you
Get the old guy to do it for you
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/the-d5d500-blog/d500-and-third-party-lenses.html
Blue Tit by Wez Filtness, on Flickr
Blue Tit by Wez Filtness, on Flickr
Buzzard by Wez Filtness, on Flickr
I suppose one of the benefits of being a grampsTamron 150-600 ... very good lens, just wanted better.
Nikon 300 f2.8 VRII ... superb lens but fell into the wildlife trap of needing longer.
Nikon 400 f2.8 AF-S ... as above but still often regret selling it.
Nikon 500 f4 VR & 300 VR PF ... gives me the 'better' I wanted
can i ask are these all superimposed on a different background? they look "cut out" somehow, or is it just the pp sharpening showing?Few shots taken today with the Nikon 200-500 on the D500 :
if that's your 1st trip out i cant wait to see more!
It must be the sharpening to your eye. It could possibly be the masking slider that I used on LR to only sharpen the bird and perch?
These are taken at my feeding station, where I have various perches setup for different bg's
Here's a link to the thread if you're interested to see what progress I am making
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/wezs-feeding-station-thread.641196/
thank you, interesting. yep just a bit to much for me, seems to look unnatural but as you say each to there ownIt must be the sharpening to your eye. It could possibly be the masking slider that I used on LR to only sharpen the bird and perch?
These are taken at my feeding station, where I have various perches setup for different bg's
Here's a link to the thread if you're interested to see what progress I am making
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/wezs-feeding-station-thread.641196/
DSC_5047 by Thomas Reid, on Flickr
Why on earth was the Canon guy at 10000 ISO if you could happily shoot at 1100? Seems he needed to slow the shutter and/or open the aperture.This was taken in a dank dark corner iso 1100, the fella with me with a Canon 5d mk iv was at iso 10000?
My shot with a tamron 150-600 and my d500, I have no idea about Canon but I certainly prefer the images my Nikon and Tammy produce
Nothing to do with Nikon
Or Tamron 150-600mm
I'm more than happy with my Tamron too.
I would do it at the focal length you will use most, if that's an option.
First off I wouldn't do any fine tuning unless you see an issue in the first place. AF and therefore fine tuning AF will vary depending on focal length and subject distance and there will be no one fine tune setting that's perfect and so you have to make compromises. If you do need to fine tune then do this at the focal length you use most and at the subject distance you use most (assuming this is workable for the test). There is another train of thought that you should adjust at the tele end if a zoom as this is where DOF will be shallowest and therefore AF intolerances more apparent.
If you do do it , do it a few times and average it out ok, the numbers it returns differ most time and not consistent, but a +2 vs 0 isn't a massive change and i doubt youd really notice it, but if you get +2 then a +6 then a +1 pop in +3 and you should be ok.
What's the 300mm been on other cameras? My first D750 needed huge (+12 to +18) calibration on my fast lenses but it had other issues and was eventually exchanged and my new one needs no AF adjustments on any of my lenses.
