Wide angle problems

I hadn't realised but it turns out that I actually have a pretty specific set of requirements for a wide angle lens. That's good in a way, I suppose, since it implies I know what I want but it does mean that a number of available lenses don't meet one or more of the criteria:
+ At least 18mm wide
+ At least f/2.8
+ Decent rating from DxOMark or the like
+ Weigh less than my camera
+ Budget c.£700
+ Not fisheye

I'm open to either prime or zoom if it meets the requiements. The lens I'm using on my DX rig is the Tokina 11-16 and has been superb- my best lens- but I do tend to use it at the widest angle so it would make sense to just get a prime from that POV. I had been looking at switching to the FX equivelent of the 11-16, the 16-28 which I'm sure will deliver what I need but it weighs nearly a kilo! Not the most portable given that I mostly do wandering travel photography.

Sigma and Nikon both have well-regarded beautifully light 20mm primes (the Sigma one is f/1.8!) but I checked the loss of FOV on Nikon's handy lens simulator between 16 and 20mm and it's just too much for me. I prefer to see all the things. My best urban landscape shots are all 16mm equivelent. Sigma also do a 15mm prime but it's a fisheye and a (discontinued) 14mm prime that sadly doesn't appear to be very good. Other offerings from Nikon are a 14mm prime and a 14-24mm, both at f/2.8. This would be ideal were it not for the £1300 price tag.

So where does all this leave me? Apparently having to compromise- pay nearly twice what I'd like, lose some FOV or haul around a tank. I'm stumped.

D610 purchase

I went ahead and purchased a D610 from an eBay seller. Advertised as "new UK stock in sealed box" for £200 cheaper than the Amazon price. I was... cautious but decided to commit, reasoning that what is described is exactly what I want and if any aspect is not as described, I'm covered by eBay policy. Nothing to lose, right?

The item was dispatched quickly and arrived by special delivery the next day- a new, UK model complete with warranty card in... a box with a broken seal. Now, Nikon product registration accepted the serial number fine (and I know they do some validation on that since they prompted me about my gry market D7000 when I registered that) but I might give the warranty line a call and just check that they'll honour the warranty.

As for the camera itself, I've not had a project since I acquired it but I shot a couple of test shots of what happened to be around the place i.e. my cat.

It's nice to pair it with my FX lenses that I'd purchased prior to the switch. The AF feels great and I feel that the shots are coming out sharper than on my D7000. This probably just means that my D7000 needed a routine calibration maintenance, but I'm still pleased with what's coming out the of 610 in any case. It's worth noting that this shot was taken in a dark room and I was really pleased with its low-light AF performance (which has been something of a selling point) and the fact that it doesn't engage it's "assistance beacon" as readily as did the 7000 and seems to manage fine without it. Also very pleased with the bokeh of it when combined with the 50mm f/1.8.

I'll do another update on the camera when I've had a proper chance to use it on a project but my initial feeling is that I'm pleased with the investment.

Upgrade All The Lens!

My new lens arrived yesterday. Nothing too exciting, a NIKKOR AF-S 50mm f/1.8G, the full frame equivalent of the DX NIKKOR AF-S 50mm f/1.8D I've been using on my D7000. I've bought it in preparation of moving up to a full-frame body. In the interim, it works as a 75mm f/1.8 on the crop-sensor D7000. I'm sure I'll do an update about the lens itself before to long but what I wanted to write about today is the the process of piecemeal upgrading from the one system to the other- replacing my DX lens with an FX equivalent and the decisions about each. Here's my current gear and the options I'm considering for the upgrade:

Body:
Current (DX): D7000
Considered (FX): D610, D800
I've already written about delaying buying a D600 until the dust/oil issue was resolved and, now that the 610 has arrived, I've still got some reservations about that model. Namely, it's central clustering of focus points compared to the handsome spread on the D7000. Now, I understand that this is a problem generally on full-frame digital cameras but the 600/610 has it worse than many. Ideally, I'd really like to wait for the next iteration to see what happens there but I have some once-in-a-lifetime type travel plans coming up in a few months and I think I should have the full-frame for that hence I have to choose from what's available. Having pretty much committed to staying with Nikon (already picked up a couple FX lenses) my options are for the D610 or the D800. The D800, despite having a slightly better focus point spread, is larger and heavier and I do a lot of travel photography so I'd ideally like to keep things light where I can. Also it's virtually twice the price of the 610 and I don't think I'd see the benefit for the extra outlay.

Telephoto zoom:
Current (DX): Tamron 18-250mm
Considered (FX): Nikon 28-300mm (purchased)
I wrote about deciding on the Nikon 28-300 from the available options. It's also one of the reasons I chose to stick with Nikon rather than taking the opportunity of switching systems to try Canon- the Canon equivalent is far outside my price range. Is it the sharpest? Hell no, but it's a decent lens for a decent price and it provides the flexibility I was looking for from this piece of my kit.

Portrait prime lens:
Current (DX): Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
Considered (FX): Nikon 50mm f/1.8G (purchased)
This was an easy decision, standard cheap 50mm f/1.8 DX prime has straight equivalent for full-frame bodies. £150. Job done.

Super wide-angle lens:
Current (DX): Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Considered (FX): Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, Sigma 10-20 f/4-f/5.6, Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
The Nikon equivalents of the Tokina wide angle are crazy expensive (for a hobbyist, anyway). I had a brief panic where I thought that Tokina's FX model wouldn't offer an equivalent field of view to the DX equivalent and I'd be stuck but it turns out the 16-28 gives a maximum 107° vs. the 11-16's 104°. So it seems that the Tokina 16-28 will be a definite, the only alternatives being stupid expensive or f/4 max. I've taken a look at Tamron and Sigma's offerings in this space but Tamron don't do ultra-wides for full-frame cameras and the closest I can find from Sigmas is a 10-20 f/3.5 which offers 102°. So likely going to be the Tokina but shout up if you know of a good F-mount super-wide.

This was far, far longer than intended.

Machinery 2.9 example

Further to yesterday's post, I thought I'd show a quick example of a single exposure enhanced with Machinery HDR 2.9. It's not the perfect example since there's some moderate JPG artefaction happening but overall I think you can see the effect. Nothing too dramatic, just a basic preset easily toned down if it's thought to be too strong (it's probably a little over-sharpened) but comparing it with the base image on the left, I think it definitely adds a desirable enhancement.

Machinery HDR 2.9

One of the things I like about the Machinery HDR software is that it's clear that it's continuously being improved and developed behind the scenes. It seems as though every other time I start it up, there's a new version to update to. We're now on version 2.9 which professed "improved ghost removal" (something I'd commented before was weaker when compared with Photomatix). I'll be honest, I'm still not seeing it but the overall improvement in HDR quality from, say, v2.6 means that I can often remove the single exposure that's causing the ghost and I'm still able to get the overall effect I want from only two (JPG) exposures. Of course that doesn't help if you've got movement between all three frames, but it's something worth having nonetheless.

As I said, the overall improvement to HDR is great- it achieves an increasingly 'natural' HDR look (something they've always strived for). Blacks are well preserved, something I always struggled with in Photomatix where it would make my pictures look washed out, the famous HDR halo effect is all but banished entirely and, perhaps most surprisingly, it's able to achieve great effects from a single JPG exposure. Even for non-typical HDR subjects such as portraits. I'm now using it as a generic post-processing tool for pictures I wouldn't describe as HDR per se (e.g. the snap of Sacha, above). I'm seeing it really emphasize depth in a number of shots and it definitely bears further experimentation.