AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - It's not you, it's me

Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E

The  NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E

I received my Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E back on Monday,  05/09/2016. At the time I was dealing with some health issues and didn't get around to shooting much with it after it arrived.

I've read a number of accounts stating that this lens has production quality assurance issues, such as this article on Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6-vs-500mm-f4-at-block-creek-ranch). A lot of articles tell you to get out and test the IQ (Image Quality) and send it back if it isn't good. Again, and unfortunately, I didn't do that.

Now I'm questioning the lens. Or myself.

What I care about in the lens

I really want sharp pictures. As the common term goes, I want "tack sharp" pictures. I want to use this, or any lens, to see the utmost detail in what I'm shooting which ends up being reflected in the sharpness.

I don't really care about vignette issues because any of the post processing software I have takes care of that (Nikon Capture NX2, Adobe Elements or Lightroom, or manually in Adobe Photoshop). Same with distortions, or at least to the point that I don't notice it (but I'm not terribly critical when it comes to that since I think that distortions mainly show up with subjects with a lot of straight lines such as architectural photographs).

For me, shooting primarily landscapes, the bottom line is that I want to see details in trees when they're shot from afar. I want to see details in rocks, boulders, or mountains. If I shoot an animal I want to see my reflection in their eye. In that regard I'm similar to Todd Vorenkamp who wrote this article for B & H about testing a lens for sharpness (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-test-your-lens).

Treating her right

My Nikon D610 and Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod

I know that the lens isn't everything when it comes to capturing sharp images. For instance, Ken Rockwell has posted an article about issues affecting image sharpness that has a lot of things to think about (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm). And here's an article by Thom Hogan that's still available (although I don't think he has a link to it on his current site): http://www.bythom.com/rightpixels.htm.

Basically there are a number of items that combined will factor in to whether you get a sharp image or not and I try to address them as best as I can. First, I almost always use a tripod. I don't care if a lens has vibration reduction or not, I don't trust my shaky hands. Second, I almost always use a wireless remote shutter release trigger. Third, I use a mirror lock up mode (which is one reason I wanted the better camera, in my case, the Nikon D610. The Nikon D3200 doesn't have mirror lock up).

But what happens when you do those things and you're still not convinced your getting great (sharp) images?

Is it soft?

Climbers on El Capitan
Nikon D610 + Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E lens

The photograph at left of the climbers on El Capitan was shot with the Nikkor 200-500mm lens at 480mm, f/11, 1/200s, ISO 100. It was shot at 2:20PM in pretty bright sunlight (there weren't any clouds there and this cliff face was being hit with the sun on 9/6/2016. There was some breeze but not much and especially not where I was sitting in the El Capitan meadow.

This image has a link to the full resolution image. Sharpening has been applied but I still think I should be able to see more detail. I'm just not sure.

I do know that if you believe in the reciprocal rule for shutter speeds, with a 500mm focal length the shutter speed should be at least as fast as 1/500 seconds. I have to be honest and admit I haven't actually thought of that while shooting and consequently I haven't adjusted the lens as necessary to get that faster shutter speed (either by increasing the ISO or using a larger f-stop such as f/8). Prior to taking the shot, I consciously thought of setting the f-stop to f/11 in order to have a larger depth of field which means more of the shot should be sharp. Of course, there's only one distance from the camera that is the sharpest; the depth of field is a range of sharpness deemed to be "acceptable." But, the range should include a good amount of sharpness at the target distance.

Depth of Field Calculations

I shot the image above from the El Capitan Meadow near a fallen log. I can see it on Google maps, which allows me to also measure the distance from the log to the face, which is roughly 1,800 feet. There are various claims as to the height of the face; I'll just arbitrarily use 3,000 feet. I also know that the climbers were roughly 1/2 of the way up the face which makes them about 1,500 feet above the level of the meadow. Using a bit of mathematics, that means that the distance from my camera to the climber is roughly 2,343 feet. I'll round it to 2,300 feet.

There are many online depth of field calculators, and I chose to use the one by Studio JPIC (http://www.studiojpic.com/calculators/depth-of-field-calculator). Choosing the Circle of Confusion of 0.029 for my Nikon D610, and using the values above, the DoF (Depth of Field) is calculated to be from 1,167 feet to 76,562 feet for a total of approximately 75,400 feet (I'm ignoring the decimal portion, it's not really significant at these distances). The climber should have been in focus. 

Changing the Aperture on the calculator to 8, the DoF is calculated to be from 1,348 feet to 7,807 feet, roughly 6,500 feet, which is quite a change but still, the climber should have been in focus. Just for fun, I changed the aperture to 5.6, resulting in a DoF calculated to be from 1,539 feet to 4,543 feet, roughly 3,000 feet. I could have easily just left it there.

According to Thom Hogan's review of the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (thankfully someone puts more effort into testing lenses than I do - I can just benefit from their work), the lens (his copy at least) gets slightly sharper at f/8 than f/5.6 but not much. In fact, he says that by f/11 the diffraction starts to be an issue and implies it should be avoided. I need to commit that to memory - that unless I'm trying to get a sunburst (which requires the small apertures such as f/22), I shouldn't use this lens above f/8. And for this distance the DoF would have been fine.

So if it's not the (calculated) depth of field issue, what's the problem?

Is it truly soft?

I can only look at my images - I don't have another copy of the lens to compare them to. I think I need to actually go out and do some testing. I'll have to try to do that. But just through writing this and thinking about things, I want to keep my aperture at f/8 or lower.

Reciprocal Rule

Bison at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon
Nikon D610 + Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E lens

And for wildlife, or any subject with movement such as trees swaying in the wind, I want to pay attention to the "reciprocal rule" which provides a guideline that for a lens at 500mm the shutter speed should at least be as fast as the reciprocal of that length, or 1/500 second. I don't think that would have made much difference with the rock face since it wasn't moving much but I can't be sure that the climber wouldn't have been sharper. He could have been swinging around.

In the bison photograph at right, I shot this at 500mm with f/11, 1/100 second, and ISO 100. If you open this image you'll see that the eyes are not terribly sharp. It's not bad but I think there's some motion blur. I think this should have been shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of at least 1/500s and if necessary the ISO should have been bumped up. It was an early morning shot, at 8:33 AM, but there was plenty of sunlight and no clouds in the sky. I don't know if I would have needed to increase the ISO or not. 

No decision

It looks like I've got some learning to do regarding this lens. Long lenses require different considerations; they reveal a lot more motion in the camera. I haven't figured out if the lens is an issue or my technique. Until I determine whether I can do everything under my control to get the best image quality and sharpness out of the lens I don't have a reason to send it back to Nikon. I'll keep working with the lens and describing my results. 

First photos with my new AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED

I got my new AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED lens yesterday in time to try to shoot the Perseid meteor shower with it. I went out last night to a spot east of Apache Junction, Arizona, with the Arizona Night Photography group from meetup.com. There were quite a few people there; on the website 77 people said they'd be there.

Arizona Night Photography group
Perseid Meteor Shower 2016

The spot had pretty good levels of light pollution even that close to Phoenix. Unfortunately the moon didn't set until about 1AM. Not that it mattered, we didn't really see much of a concentration of meteors. I was there from about 6:30 PM to about 2:30 AM and probably only saw about 20 meteors or shooting stars. A couple were pretty bright but for the most part it was the same as my previous meteor shower outings - pretty underwhelming. I was bummed because this was being touted as the best event of 2016.

This outing worked like my others (I've tried to shoot Perseid and Geminid showers in the past). I'd see a meteor to my left so I'd point the camera that direction and take a number of shots. While doing that I'd see a meteor to my right so I'd recompose. A gal I met last night likened shooting meteors to shooting whales. You never really know where they're going to show until they're already gone. 

If there was truly a concentrated emanation point it might be different. But I haven't experienced that myself.

I still tried to get some shots with my new lens, even if they weren't including any meteors. I really wanted to see how it worked.

The bottom line is that I think the lens works great, at least compared to my AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR. But I still had the same problems using it.

Moon Glow
20mm - f/2.0 - 2.0 sec - ISO 400

I shot 70 images but only got a few that were in focus. I really have a hard time focusing in the dark. The best subject was the moon but that was only good for the distant subjects such as stars. I was able to do that okay and I think the focus is pretty good. I like that I could use a lot shorter exposure time due to the faster (larger diameter) aperture. 

The image at right was shot with my Nikon D610 and the Nikkor 20mm at f/2.0 and ISO 400. I did crop it because the rest of the foreground at the bottom was out of focus.

The larger aperture diameter also reduces depth of field and it really came in to play. I was hoping that the larger aperture would allow me to focus easier since I thought I'd be able to view the subject better, either through the view finder or in live view. It didn't seem to make much improvement over the 16-35mm for me, however. I still struggled to focus.

I tried auto focus too but it was worse than manual focus. 

Focal Plane Example
20mm - f/1.8 - 8.0 sec - ISO 500

I shot this capture of a cactus but you can clearly see that the focus plane runs somewhere through the middle of the cactus. Some of the needles in the upper "crotch"  of the cactus are in focus as are some of the "blooms" on the ground. This image doesn't have any post processing done to it so you can also see the other artifacts.

So even though I shot a few pics, I don't have much to show for it due to my focus problems. I just couldn't focus on close objects. (The problem was not due to auto focus changing the focus when I shot the photograph - I had the auto focus turned off OR I used back button focus - focus doesn't change unless I want it to.)

If I hadn't been with the group of people trying to shoot night photographs I would have lit up the subjects with a flashlight while focusing.

Beyond that problem, which is with my technique or abilities and not that of the lens (since a few images were in focus), I had heard that the coma was really good in this lens. I know I've had issues with coma in my 16-35mm but this lens is a lot better behaved, probably due to the aspherical elements is my guess. And because this is a prime instead of a zoom.

Here's a pic with a bit of exposure adjustment but you can see the coma in a number of places in the corners. It's not bad. I haven't done it myself but I recently watched a YouTube of a photog who edits the stars that have bad coma, I think it was in Photoshop, and he'd just apply a round mask to the offending stars and get rid of the coma shapes.

Coma Example
20mm - f/1.8 - 8.0 sec - ISO 1000

I'm pleased with the lens so far and can't wait to put it through some more paces.

As for the outing, when I left the appointed location I travelled over to the Superstition Mountains to see if it was any better. It was sort of on the way home and allowed me to wait until a bit later. I got there around 3 AM. I got out of my Explorer, waited maybe 15 minutes but didn't see another meteor so headed home. 

I haven't been out much this year due to my health issues and this little shoot was very pleasant. The air temperature cooled after about 11 PM, maybe to 85 degrees F or so. Just sitting out under the sky, seeing part of the Milky Way with my own eyes, was simply wonderful. I got to meet a couple of gals who are knowledgeable about photography (both shooting full frame Sony A7 and A7R) and was able to talk to them for hours about camera gear and post processing. I don't care if I didn't get any good meteor images - I got a lot of pleasure!

Unboxing my new AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED!

My new AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED lens arrived this morning, thanks Adorama! I'm going out tonight to try shooting the Perseid meteor shower with it, near Globe, Arizona. I'm meeting up with a Night Photography group from Meetup.com. I'm anxious to meet the other night oriented photographers and hopefully get some tips.

In the meantime, I don't have anything to report yet about the lens so I thought I'd post the always loved "unboxing" photos that I shot with my iPhone. Here you go:

My new AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED is on it's way!

Today is August 11, 2016. Tonight is supposed to be the peak of the Perseid meteor shower and it is predicted to be the best event for quite a few years (the next event estimated to be as good will be in 2099 - I don't know if I'll make it or not). 

It seems like just yesterday that I got my AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR. In fact, it was May 3, 2016. Due to my never ending health issues this year, I think I've shot maybe a couple of dozen images with it. 

AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G

And yet here I am ordering another lens. This time I'm adding the AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED. I am planning to go out tomorrow evening to use it to shoot some night sky and hopefully capture some of the meteors!

This lens has a much faster aperture than my other wide angle lens, the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR. I'm using that excuse to add another lens with a focal length that I already have, which I've been avoiding until this point.

Plus, this is a prime, for what that's worth.

I have not been completely unhappy with my 16-35mm f/4 for night skies, but I really got good results last year at the Grand Canyon National Park - North Rim when I used my very cheap AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D. That lens is pretty cool since it DOES have a physical focus stop at infinity; you run the focus into the stop and it's focused at infinity. Not beyond.

My 16-35 will continue to be useful, I imagine, for shots with more light and where I want to have more ability to compose with the zoom. I am planning to visit Yosemite National Park this September and I believe I will have a use for both of these lenses. I'm anxious to give it a try and will post more findings when I do.

Another part of my pleasure with that lens was the aperture. What I don't like about the 50mm f/1.8D is that it is a bit narrow. I'm hoping to get the benefits of a wide, prime lens to make up for it.

This lens doesn't have a stop at infinity focus but neither does my 16-35mm so I'm kind of used to it. It just means you need to address focusing in the dark some how (or pre-focusing the lens before it gets dark).

Similar to my 50mm, this lens doesn't have any VR (Nikon for Vibration Reduction). That seems weird when paying this much for a lens (about $800 from Adorama.com). But, that means there's no VR functionality to go bad either. 

The lens is one of the Nikkor "Gold Stripe" lenses, which they appear to put on lenses with the "Nano Crystal Coat", indicated by the "N" with the gold background. 

I've read a good number of reviews for this and some other lenses and the worst review I saw was from Thom Hogan - and it was still good. He just had a bit more detail about it's weaknesses. I don't see how I can go wrong with it - unless illness continues to keep me home bound!

Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED AFS VR Zoom Lens

The Need

Sea Lions at Haceta Head Viewpoint, Oregon Coast
Nikon D610, Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 @ 200mm

Last summer, August of 2015, I took a drive through parts of Oregon and Washington. Along the Oregon coast, at the Haceta Head lighthouse viewpoint (located a mile or two south of the lighthouse), I tried to shoot some sea lions that were in the small cove between the viewpoint and the point the light house is perched on. 

I don't do a lot of wildlife shots, but I do enough to know that a longer lens would certainly help. But besides that, I've had enough cases where I'd actually like to be able to zoom in on landscape features too, and to be able to do it in camera rather than cropping in post production.

For example, I wanted to shoot a mountain (I think it was Humphrey's Peak near Flagstaff, Arizona) but I didn't like the shot and didn't end up doing it. If you're close to a mountain often times you have a strange aspect or can't get it all in the shot. It'd be nice to zoom in from a distance and be able to isolate the subject from a better vantage point. At least that's what I'm telling myself in order to add a longer full frame lens to my growing collection!

I believe that getting a longer lens will answer some more of my composition needs. 

Why the Nikon?

I started out eyeing the Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 when it was announced in 2013 and thought I'd eventually add it to my collection. Then Sigma announced their 150-600mm f/5-6.3 in September 2014, in two versions. That also appeared interesting and after some time the reviews seemed to point towards the Sigma as being better than the Tamron. Okay, I adjusted my sights.

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

Jumping forward to August 2015, Nikon announced their 200-500mm f/5.6! Another option, with a constant aperture although with a shorter focal range. Hmmm...

After another bit of time, once the lens was available to the public, the reviews started coming out. The Nikon had a lot going for it and most reviews I read claimed a better image quality compared to the Tamron and Sigma, not to mention generally better build quality. Not all reviews came to that conclusion (see this Photography Life review, for example, which recommends the Sigma 150-600 Sport over the Nikkor).

The reviews swayed me towards the Nikon, however, included one of my faves, Thom Hogan. While he admits he hadn't had much time with the Tamrons or Sigmas, his assessment of the Nikon was very influential and consequently I've finally got one on order as of May 3, 2016 from Adorama. I'll see how much I like it, and may be able to talk a photographer I know who really likes her Sigma 150-600 Sport to do a test comparison with me. I'm not against trying the Sigma, but one other guy who I also take with a grain of salt, didn't have any reason to get the Sigma over the Nikkor - Ken Rockwell's review.

(update) Basically, I decided to get this lens instead of the Tamron or Sigma because:

• A common thread that the image quality (IQ) is better on the Nikon, and generally better throughout it's focal range.
• A constant aperture throughout the focal length. I don't know if I'll do it, but it supports using a teleconverter (Thom Hogan has tried it but doesn't generally use one either).
• 50mm missing on the short end - this might bother me, it might mean swapping lenses more if 200 is just too long. However I'm already swapping lenses more than my original mentor Jon B. (and suffering / putting up with dirty sensors as a result). 
• 100mm missing on the long end - from what I've read, with few exceptions, the Tamron and Sigma IQ is reported to fall off over 500mm anyway. 

Known issues

I know two things about this lens that will cause me to do something more or different:

1. I will need some sort of case for it that I can strap to a belt or hang over my shoulder. I haven't quite started looking in to this issue yet. I use a LowePro waist bag that I really like. This lens won't fit in it. I don't like backpacks (I have one but don't like using it). I just want a protective case for the single lens that attaches to my waist or hangs from my shoulder but isn't free to move around.
2. I will need to mount a plate compatible with my Manfrotto ball head. I have two plates so it won't be a problem, but I may want to pick up a third (I have the additional plate because I have two camera bodies). However, I've actually been looking at switching to some sort of arca-swiss setup that I can mount on my Manfrotto ball head (I really like it - the Manfrotto 468MGRC5).

When it arrives and I get to spend a bit of time with her, I mean it, I'll write a bit more about what I think. (update, 5/8/2016 3:41PM) The UPS tracking says it's arrived here in Phoenix!

Considering the Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens

I have had my eyes on the new (relatively new, it was announced in August 2015) AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens. It looks like an amazing lens. I just haven’t been able to pull the trigger yet and I don’t know why.

This lens has great reviews from just about everyone on the major sites such as Adorama, B&H Photo, and DP Review. Even Ken Rockwell had good things to say about it. I’m waiting for Thom Hogan’s review but he hasn’t posted much – but he has hinted that he likes it.

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

I’m not going to go over the specs of the lens; you can read details about the lens at many other and more informed web sites. But I will mention why I want it and why I’m hesitant to get it.

I have shot enough to know that at times I wish I had a longer lens. In particular, this last summer on my trip along the Oregon coast, I shot some sea lions from distances that I would like to have had more reach available. By the time I shot and cropped what I could shoot with my 200mm lens, there wasn’t a lot of image left.

For my Nikon D610 I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G (with the lovely gold band) and like it a lot. I had a plan to get the Tamron 150-600mm but a friend convinced me that the 70-200mm was a better lens, that I’d like the image quality (IQ) better on it. So I went that route and haven’t been disappointed at all with my choice other than the lack of reach.

When the Sigma 150-600 came out and had reports or reviews that it had better IQ than the Tamron, plus it had the docking station available to get firmware updates, and the lower priced version was right even with the Tamron, I started thinking that I’d pick one of those up. I was more interested in the less expensive version, not feeling that basically doubling the price was worth what the “sport” version offered for how I shoot.

Then, this last August, Nikon announced their 200-500mm lens. This is a tough call. It’s a little narrower focal range than the 150-600mm. That means that on the short end I might be able to use the Tamron or Sigma for a particular shot but I may have to swap out the Nikkor to my 70-200mm if I really wanted to be shorter than 200mm. If you’re backed up against a wall or cliff and want to include more of a scene than 200mm will allow, the choice is to swap lenses or compromise on the composition. Or, have the Tamron or Sigma.

On the long end, 100mm extra on the Tamron or Sigma probably wouldn’t be noticed quite as much. I might have to crop the Nikkor shot a bit if I needed to remove something from the shot that I couldn’t get rid of through extending the lens that extra 100mm but it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the difference between the 200mm maximum I have now compared to the 600mm of the Tamron or Sigma. That’s 3 times the distance or 200% increase! Between the 500mm to 600mm there is only a 20% increase.

Nikon has a cool angle (or field) of view simulator that you can also use to see the dramatic difference (or lack of difference) between focal lengths. It is online at:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

For a full frame camera, the diagonal angle of view for 150mm is 16.4 degrees and for 200mm it is 12.3 degrees which is fairly significant. The diagonal angle of view at 500mm is 5.0 degrees and at 600mm it is 4.1 degrees. That end is not very significant as can be seen on the Nikon simulator.

The Nikkor is somewhat more limiting at both ends when compared to the Tamron or Sigma. The difference is that Nikon can fine tune the optics easier since they are providing only a 3x zoom, compared to the others that are a 4x zoom. This is born out in the reviews where actual users state pretty convincingly and in sufficient numbers that the Nikkor has improved IQ.

In addition to the focal length, the Nikkor also offers a larger and constant aperture of f/5.6. By comparison, the Tamron and Sigma aperture is f/5 to f/6.3.  The Nikkor will support using a teleconverter, if desired and your camera supports it, at all focal lengths while providing auto focus.

All three lenses have image stabilization by the Nikkor claims that their new version offers 4 stops worth of stabilization. All of the lenses expand and contract according to the focal length so they’ll all have breathing to do.

My biggest factor in my photography is striving for IQ. Because of this, I believe that the Nikkor is the best choice for me. I’d rather swap a lens at the short end and gain any edge in IQ. I’m still a Nikkor only guy with my lenses and have been pretty satisfied with all of them. And, if I mount the 500mm focal length on my D3200 I end up with a 750mm equivalent!

Okay, I’ve convinced myself regarding WHICH lens to get, I just need to convince myself that I truly need a longer lens. I think I need one more photo shoot where I come across a situation that I could ACTUALLY benefit from a longer lens. Once I do, I think I’ll order a copy!

P.S.(es)

1.  Purchasing this lens at roughly $1,400 US will be my third lens of $1,000 or more. In fact, all told I think it would mean I will have spent about $3,600 on lenses ($1,000 for the 16-35mm f/4, $1,200 for the 70-200mm f/4, and the $1,400 for the 200-500mm). This is after having been into photography for less than 3 years. Also note that I have my eye on the Nikon D810 which is also about $3,000. Sheesh. I may need to sell a guitar or two!

2.  I don’t use my D3200 crop camera enough. Next time I want more focal length I should really get out the D3200. I actually have the 55-300mm DX lens, which provides an equivalent of 450mm at the long end. I’ll admit that I did NOT get that rig out when shooting the sea lions and now I wish I’d taken the time to do it. I did think about it at the time but didn’t do it (it was cold and windy, I was parked a bit away from where I was shooting and the D3200 was in my Explorer, I would have had to put the quick release plate on the D3200, and I could probably come up with more excuses – such as I never seem to be as happy with the D3200 IQ in anything other than bright light).

In addition, one other thing that’s been on my mind lately, is that I’ve never tried my more expensive lenses on the D3200. I should see if the IQ is better on the D3200 if I use a better lens.

Dirty little secret

Okay, it's not much of a secret but it is dirty. My Nikon D610 sensor that is.

I was really dismayed when I returned from my trip to Oregon and Washington and started processing the Nikon pics and found spots on my images.

In this image you can see the spots in the upper left corner area (click on it to open a larger version).

Three Arch Rocks image - spots in upper left corner

I had recently had the sensor cleaned, on 4/2/2015. I have used it a bit since then but hadn't had any spots until processing the pics from this trip. I have been pretty careful about where and when I changed lenses, typically only doing it in the Exploder. There have been a few times that I've done it in the field but I always do it by prepping the lenses (loosening the cap, getting it ready for the swap) and when I have a lens off the body I keep the lens mount facing down to reduce the chances of particles entering the body. I make the swap as quick as possible and finish by putting the cap on the previous lens, if there was one.

I'm pretty sure that whatever is on the sensor is NOT a dust particle but is more likely to be more oil splatter. I say that because it's in the same spot on each picture and I have the sensor cleaner running each time I power off the camera.

I can see I will be returning the camera to Tempe Camera again for another cleaning. I don't mind paying for a cleaning but I was hoping it might only be once or twice per year. At this rate it's about three times per year.

An alternative is to learn how to clean the sensor myself and the next time I start seeing spots, if it's only another 4 months down the road, I may venture into that process.

As an aside to this issue, I had really been thinking of upgrading to the Nikon D810 but this has reduced my enthusiasm for spending about $3,000 on another body when this one has this type of issue. I want to believe that the oil issue with the D600 was actually fixed in the D610 but after these experiences I'm left somewhat skeptical.

My first Milky Way Picture

The Plan

On Saturday, 6/20/2015, a fellow photographer invited me to try shooting the Milky Way from the Superstition Mountains which is about 40 miles east of Phoenix, by Apache Junction. He had seen a great picture on Facebook and wanted to try it too. I always like going to the Superstitions so it was a man date! (He had his wife along so it wasn't quite that weird.)

We decided to meet at the gate to the Lost Dutchman State Park which is at the north-west end of the Superstition Mountain range at around 8:00 PM.

I decided to look online for additional information about shooting the Milky Way so I'd hopefully be more prepared. I found a number of images such as this one on Flickr by Beth Myers. I noted that she used a Nikon D610 (YAY) with apparently the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. She shot hers at 3:02 AM on 5/3/2014. She used f/2.8 at 30s and ISO 1600 with a 14mm focal length. Since the full size image is 6016 x 4016 pixels (the size of the full images) I think she was fairly close to the mountain.

Stellarium Screen Shot from the Stellarium Website

Next I wanted to see what time the Milky Way would be visible. I found out about Stellarium, a really slick and FREE (for desktop use) application that not only shows the stars from the location you enter, but it has a real time simulator that you can control the speed of to see how the moon, planets, and stars and constellation move across the sky. 

Using the information from this application you can find out what time the Milky Way will appear vertical, for instance. It roughly shows the location, displaying the major compass coordinates on the screen. It's really slick - I also paid for a version to install on my Kindle Fire HD, which I took with me to help visualize where the Milky Way should appear.

Mice and Men

We met at the park gate as planned, or there about. I got there early and had wandered into the park and took some pics while waiting. Spoiler alert - I liked these earlier pics as much as or more than the Milky way pic. Here's one of them:

Dusk over the Usery Mountains

I really like the gold of this picture with some subtle green. This is pretty much Straight Out Of the Camera (SOOC) with the saturation bumped, some burning, etc.

When it got dark enough we started taking some pictures. They just weren't very inspiring. We could see the Milky Way in the pictures a bit, but one thing I'd read was that you really should be able to see it with your naked eye (or eyes) in order to capture it well. And we couldn't. 

I believe the issue was that it was pretty hazy. Normally I can see the Superstitions from Phoenix itself. On the drive out I could not see them from Phoenix but had to get closer, maybe to where I was within 15 miles or so, to see the mountains through the haze. I think that caused two issues: 1) it reduced visibility of the Milky Way, and 2) it captured "light pollution" in the atmosphere which also reduces the contrast of the Milky Way to the dark, empty space.

Here's my best picture, and this was edited quite a bit at this point:

Milky Way over the Superstitions #1

Post Processing

I found a good, succinct tutorial video that I watched (I really don't like videos much because I have to turn on a lot of other gear that I use for my recording studio in order to play audio from my PC). I watched it because the guy also offers some FREE presets for Adobe Lightroom specifically for processing night / sky / Milky Way images. The guy's name is David Kingham and his tutorial / presets page is http://www.davidkingham.com/night-photography-lightroom-presets. I used his advice and presets to get the picture above to the point it's at.

I wasn't very happy with it, though, compared to the Beth Myers image mentioned above, or others I'd seen. So I decided to try playing with it some more. Basically I took a copy of the above image (easy to do in Lightroom with a [CTRL][']) and tried to mainly bump up the exposure so that it wasn't so dark. Well, that lightened up everything too much so I used some filters to darken the sky above and below the Milky Way. I'd also used David Kingham's "star de-focus" preset on the upper and right stars but I thought it blurred the stars too much so removed most of that effect. Here's the final version which I like better:

Milky Way over the Superstitions #2

This was with my Nikon D610 and Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 lens. Exposure is 25 seconds at f/4, ISO 1600, and focal length at 16mm.

Initial thoughts about the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Lens

Out for a Picture Shoot 

I finally got out a bit for some shooting with my new AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 ED VR lens. (I'm writing this on 3/29/2015 and notice that the sale on the lens is over - it's back up to $1,399.95 from the $1,199.95 I paid.)

I spent a night at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona. It's about 3 hours from Phoenix (2-1/2 hours from my home).

I had just visited the park a week or so before I received my new lens and hadn't been particularly happy with the shots I got at that visit, as I mentioned in my 2/26/2015 post. A lot of that was due to the time of day I shot pictures there, but I also felt it was due to my composition.

My Composition Issues

A fellow "Stunning Digital Photography" group member (actually, more than one) suggested using a longer focal length to help isolate a subject. I had shot most, if not all, of my pictures on my previous visit using my 16-35mm wide angle. After thinking about their advice along with the books by David duChemin that I enjoy, I really wanted to return to the park and try the new lens.


One aspect of producing better images, in my opinion, and that I read someone else state and I like their vision, is creating pictures that make viewers stop and look at the image when they're leafing through tons of other pictures online or in any other fashion. With the proliferation of images now, such as on Facebook where almost every post has at least one image, you can see people just zipping past one post after another, stopping on interesting or eye-catching images.

What does it take to get an image that will make someone stop and consider it? That's been my quest (at least a quest for understanding even if the results don't meet the goals). David's books are geared towards just that, trying to MAKE interesting or compelling images, not just TAKING images.

That means paying deliberate attention to what is inside the frame and what isn't, the perspective, lighting, etc. And the aspect I'm working on the most is including/excluding items in the frame. With a wide angle lens it's hard to exclude anything. I think my problem is still NOT getting close enough to the subject. Doing that helps force other items to appear less significant compared to the subject. 

Another way to help isolate a subject is to decrease the lens "Angle of View" (check out this cool page from Nikon to see how focal length relates to the angle of view: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/ ). That implies my new 70-200mm should help me compose better shots.

The End Results

I was not disappointed. I liked how the lens felt and the auto focus (although I do quite a bit of manual focus). I'm not going to say these are the best pictures ever, but I like these. I like the color and the reduced angle of view so it make it easier for your eye (and mine) to see a main subject. 

In the Sonoran Desert it's not easy to shoot a landscape image and NOT get a lot of cactus or other shrubbery in the image, but I think that the image at left really causes you to first focus on the Organ Pipe cactus, then perhaps look around at the other elements such as the ocotillio. And, getting this shot at sunset with the vivid sky and clouds doesn't hurt at all (which was, again, my major complaint about the shots I got in my previous visit). In fact I think there is a lot of color here that makes this image stand out on a page with other images. And yes, this is taken with the new lens.

I'm not great at capturing wildlife. There were quite a few birds around the campground but this is the only one I was able to capture (I missed a quail maybe 20 feet away but the camera was on my tripod and the quail was running fast. No, it wasn't a road runner - I didn't see any road runners this visit). This was at sunset, taken at 18mm, f/13, 1/40sec, ISO 400 (I don't often shoot at that ISO but there was wind so I was trying to get quicker shutter speeds). This was hand held with vibration reduction enabled. I think it's good especially since my hands shake uncontrollably quite a bit (which is why I'm not a surgeon).

I've included some additional shots below, all using the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 lens. I did use my Nikon D3200 and kit 18-55mm lens a bit during the trip too, and have to say I do NOT enjoy the feel of that zoom action compared to the more expensive 16-35mm or 70-200mm zooms. Yes, they both cost over $1,000 each, so there should be some difference. I'd just never noticed it before. The expensive lenses just feel good.

In post production, in either Nikon Capture NX2 or Lightroom, I don't notice aberration but then I haven't much with even my cheap lenses. Between the D610 full frame sensor, using low ISO, and using these good lenses (along with my good but cheap 50mm f/1.8D) I don't think about quality issues. I am able to just think, and try to improve, composition issues.