rubank

Here you can get all the info you want: http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html Scroll to almost bottom of the page to see the 105/2,8 VR, but don´t forget to view all the rest :)

That is also my understanding and experience, at least with D810, D800 and D300. I don´t know about the D850; they scrapped the built-in flash and maybe there are other downgrades, like less good ...

But it isn´t clear from the OP whether he inadvertantly set the ISO, aperture or shutter time. So it could just as well be said to be too few photons because of the shutter setting (and what he or ...

Yes, that is correct. But I don´t see the point of doing that since it defeats the purpose of auto-ISO, and you lose the advantage of TTL and the auto balancing of ambient vs flash light. As I said ...

OK, I don´t have the D850 but I have D810 and SB-900. It would however be highly unlikely that the newer setup would behave drastically different, IMO. I use flash and Auto-ISO regularly and it ...

Not meaning to rain on your parade, but maybe you can find some inspiration here http://www.pierretoscani.com/index-des-illustrations.html

Nice try but no cigar.
There are lots of artifacts all over her head in the "fixed" pic, plus changes in the OOF background.
If the problem is an effect of the tech used - it shouldn´t be used.

It all comes down to price vs performance. If it isn´t pin sharp full open there are several cheap, lightweight, high performance 600 mm lenses at f/6,3 out there ( that don´t have the problems ...

Quite disappointing.
I have the MF Samyang 14/2,8 for my Nikon D810, and these images are FAR from the quality I get from my gear.

I wonder if something is wrong here.
(My comment is only about...

I´m sure that Nikon wouldn´t dream of producing such a ridiculous lens, so the question is out there why they did find it relevant to seek a patent for the design.

The mirror has to sit in front of the image plane, otherwise its hinge would have to be behind the image plane and that is not doable. Then it also has to be room for the shutter, and in case of a ...

I think you missed (or at least did not mention) some other nice pieces: you´re encouraged to use the 28-300 or the new 180-400! :) and do as many professionals do: use manual focus for BIF and ...

Not really, it´s coloured artifacts. Blobs not representative of real subpixels. I have the actual screen, I know what it should look like :)

As I said, it´s not about the dog but the screen pixels. I thought I said it clearly "the pixel raster is more true to life". How many times do I have to say it is not about the dog? It is about ...

I see what you mean (sorry to waste your time). This is not about the dog; he just happens to be part of my background image on that laptop. It is about the screen pixel structure. I could have ...

Sorry, I don´t understand your question.

What´s with your eyes, man? You shouldn´t look so much on MTF graphs, it can bend your eyesight and affect your reading :) It´s all there, but I´ll repeat - just for you: 100% pixel view, the f/22 ...

Of course. Of course. Right.

You should read my post again, then things might clear up even for you :)

Diffraction is overrated, lens sharpness and pixel count is not. Here´s a detail of my laptop FHD screen, 2m distance, Sigma macro 105/2,8 EX OS HSM - a reasonbly sharp lens, Nikon D810. Left at ...