Entropius

The most pertinent comment in this article is "most noise comes from the light, not the camera". If you are processing raw, and your camera is reasonably iso invariant (my D500 is), the ISO setting...

I used to use a 7100 until it died in a sudden downpour. I agree the limited buffer is obnoxious.

I have a friend who wants to get into bird photography. She can get a D7100 or 7200 for a hell of a price on the used market!

The D500 has both better autofocus and lower noise than the 7D2. Nikon's video implementation is clumsy and awkward, but as far as stills, they're definitely beating Canon. Nikon ergonomics are...

Stuff I have: Sigma 18-35/1.8, 35/1.8 DX, 18-105 kit lens, 105/2.8, 300/4 PF Stuff I use most (on D500): 300/4 PF, Sigma 18-35. The 300 is just a wonderful piece of engineering.

There are lots of reasons to like small lenses. I can't imagine bringing a 200-500 f/5.6 with me backpacking without serious thought, but the 300 PF? Easy peasy. We have juvenile red-tailed hawks ...

Yeah. It's not a svelte little thing. It's as big and heavier than my 300 f/4... but hey, no judgment to Sigma: the fact that they're able to even make a lens like that for $700 is remarkable.

Seconding this. It is a hell of a lens and is stupid sharp wide open (except in the extreme corners) at any focal length. But it's likely larger and heavier (and possibly more expensive at $700) ...

It's probably not especially well-corrected in the corners. But for many uses nobody cares -- either your corners are not in focus anyway (so you don't care), or you're stopping down to f/4 (where...

I mean, there are lots of folks who love the 200-500/5.6 and shoot it at the long end quite a lot. Having the same lens that's smaller, lighter, and sharper would probably please these folks.

I used to use an 80-400. Then I broke it falling down a hill and bought a 300/4 PF. The thing I miss about the 80-400 is the ability to go "oh balls, the bird's taking off, zoom out!" in a hurry. ...

But they made the D500, which is a hell of a DX camera. I don't necessarily need a FX sensor. I'd probably use a D850 if someone gave one to me, but I'm perfectly happy on DX.

I'm surprised to hear this. I use the same equipment as you with 3D Tracking or Group AF, and focus misses are almost always my fault rather than the equipment's, with or without the 1.4x converter.

Nikon clearly knows how to make PF lenses that are optically excellent, so I doubt that making a 500mm that's one stop slower will strain their designers. This sort of thing isn't too hard; the...

Dear Sigma, make one of these that everyone can use ;-)

Doesn't Sigma make a 135mm f/1.8?

Sigma's lenses are top notch; there's no reason for Nikon to duplicate their effort for specialized glass like this.

The 300PF is an amazing lens. I imagine the 500PF will be too (and will of course be smaller and lighter than the 200-500).

The only thing wrong with Nikon's lens lineup is that there are no primes wider than 35mm for DX. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 does a great job, but it's as big as my 300/4 and a lot heavier. I'd love a...

I have taken tens of thousands of frames with my 300/4 PF. The bokeh is just fine, and there are no flare issues in actual use. (I've shot sunsets with the sun in the frame, even, and never seen...

The 300/4 PF is maybe no better optically than the old 300/4, but that was a tremendously good lens. The 300/4 PF is *also* a tremendously good lens.

Generally when using this sort of glass, the...