SHORT & SWEET: FX vs. DX, or "You cant get Orange Juice from Cow Tits"

Lets keep it simple, ok? Short and sweet. The KEY reasons of owning a FX camera is reducable to four things:

1. Ultrawide lenses, both prime and zoom for landscape work

2. Lens compression of framed subject face/body (A 56mm on DX is still a 56mm, despite being a 85mm FOV)

3. To get "great" bokeh requires less a shallow DOF at a given focal (85mm at 1.8 requires a 56mm at 1.4 or faster)

4. Pixel pitch (all exposure is gain and time) on MOST (some are DX pitch) FX cameras is such that shadow recovery and DR is much better

One LIVES within these limitations. DX itself has advantages over FX (pixel pitch for cropping for wildlife photography).

All in life is a trade-off, deal with it (or own both, as most pros do).

EXCLUSIVE CONTENT: All Nikkor Current Lenses Evaluated

SUGGEST DOING A RIGHT-CLICK AND DOWNLOAD OF THE VIDEO, 290MB, RATHER THAN WATCHING IT ONLINE.

17 min. video where I go over ALL current Nikkor lenses and my recommendation or lack thereof as to whether the lens is worth having, or owning.

While I quickly go over EVERY current Nikkor lens, the experience and knowledge of each lens i quickly judge has tremendous experience behind it for or against each lens.

LINK:
http://nikonfocus.com/lenses.mp4

http://nikonfocus.com/lenses.mp4

Ren Kockwell (you know who I am referring to) is a TOTAL IDIOT

Let me quote the fool below,...if you cannot find 100% fault and ignorance in everything he says, then you should sell your camera and take up another hobby/ job.

Many decades ago lens adapters were popular because cameras and lenses didn't communicate with each other, and because cameras and lenses were all made by different companies anyway.

Today it's foolish to try to adapt different lenses to digital cameras. There is no communication between lens and camera, so it's a royal pain to try to shoot with the Frankensteinian combination, and the results usually aren't as good.

When you use a lens adapter, you sentence yourself to enormous added hassles of losing metering, losing exposure automation, losing data recording, losing autofocus and losing automatic diaphragm operation: you have to remember to close and open the diaphragm by hand for each and every shot!

People quickly learn that you can't really use other brands of lenses on your DSLR or mirrorless camera because of this added inconvenience, and the potential for quality loss when using lenses optimized for different formats just isn't worth it.

It doesn't matter if you can get an Olympus OM lens and a Sony NEX adapter or whatever inexpensively on ebay, because the resulting combination of using an older lens on a digital camera always results in frustration, and the end results are rarely as good as using the correct lens in the first place.

Even the crummier modern mirrorless lenses are often optically better than using older top-end SLR or rangefinder lenses because newer lenses use far newer designs which are usually much sharper than what we accepted for use back on full-frame 35mm film.

In almost all cases, there is no electronic communication from the adapter, so you get no EXIF information, either, about the lens or its focal length.

Yes, it's easy and inexpensive to adapt old lenses to your new camera, but actually shooting with it will be a big pain. Using a lens on an adapter adds many more steps between you and your photo, all of which are taken care of automatically when you use the correct modern lens for your camera. The results with the modern lens will probably be better than with an old adapted lens, too.

If you use an adapter and like it, don't let me discourage you, but if you're asking my advice, adapters make everything much more complicated. Any time I'm thinking about my camera instead of thinking about my subject and what's in my picture winds up as weaker images.

Lens adapters are for tweakers, not for productive photographers.

Which Photographer are YOU?

Has it got this bad? I'm afraid it has. Care to comment? 

X-T2 CONCLUSION: 1 MONTH HARD TESTING Final Scoring of the Fujifilm X-T2

Detailed review to appear later, here is my final conclusion on owning a pair of X-T2 and doing very extensive testing for over a month.

The NEW $2800 Nikkor 70–200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR. Using Fluorite elements, which Nikon themselves formerly dumped on

So, the replacement for the two dud lenses (VR1 and VR2) Nikkor 70-200 2.8 has been released, and its not only extremely expensive at $3100, but also will contain at least 2 primary Fluorite elements.

I have indeed for years now told people that the VR1 and VRII Nikkor 70-200 2.8 versions were "failures" on several fronts, in both speed and focus breathing, and of course I was correct.

Nikon was forced to KILL off both lenses for their new beast. I saw this move well over a year ago.
Despite the price hike, there is no existential denial that this new lens will be superior in both speed and performance. 

HOWEVER this new lens will also prove a BOON for team Tamron who right now (sic) are having naked twister parties over the cost of this new lens and projected increase in sales of 70-200 2.8 VC Tamron lenses resultant to this news.

22 ELEMENTS

Enter the Nikkor 70–200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR lens $2,800

LET NOBODY MISS the fact that the ZOOM RING has been swapped to the front of the lens.

*This is one lens you will surely want (must) to have insurance on. A nice drop of 3+ feet and there is a danger of serious lens damage 

This is NIKON'S own spin AGAINST USING FLUORITE in the not too distant past:
"While the optical properties of this new glass closely resemble those of fluorite, Super ED glass is more resilient to rapid temperature changes (thermal shock) and not as susceptible to cracking as the crystal structure of fluorite. Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite, making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than chromatic aberration"

Downsides of using Fluorite:
Fluorite is rather fragile to temp. changes, and can crack if transitioning between hold/cold environments.
Fluorite is quite brittle and worst of all it has perfect cleavage on three planes.
Fluorite materials also have their refractive index vary with temp; thus fast lenses are made "to focus past infinity". This is so at the temp extremes one can focus at infinity.
NASA rejected Fluorite because it would crack or explode under the stress of rocketing into space with its vibrations
Dropping a lens with Fluorite is a no no.
Fluorite is rather soft and is very slow to work with, it cannot be quickly polished.

Upsides of using Fluorite:
Zero scatter throughout the element. Very low dispersion.
Exceptional color correction down to 400nm. The Germans noticed this too when they were using fluorite as microscope objectives back in the 1800s.
Excellent CA correction
Lightweight

IF YOU LIKE THESE ARTICLES, YOU CAN MAKE A KIND DONATION OF $2 OR $5 VIA PAYPAL TO EMAIL: kenw111@insightbb.com

2016 LENS OF THE YEAR goes to 3 different lenses, all fully deserving in their own right

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

Fujifilm 16mm f1.4

Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton