This review mostly details the lens MTF50 resolution performance and how well the lens auto-focuses. I don’t need to rehash the Nikon specifications of the lens. Is it just me, or does that lens title seem like all it’s missing is “EIEIO”? You can pick up this lens for dirt cheap, so bear that in mind if you notice any whining in the subsequent paragraphs about things that only exist on pricier lenses. The lens feels like it weighs nothing, and it’s really short for being able to zoom to 200mm. It has a good solid (plastic) bayonet lens shade that will reverse-mount on the lens for really compact storage. It telescopes out as you zoom to 200mm. The lens has a plastic lens mount and no rubber seal. What a shocker ;~) Focus This and the 18-55 kit lens are the only AF-S Nikkors I’m aware of that you can’t override auto-focus with the focus ring. You have to switch the lens to “manual” focus. Yuck. The skinny plastic focus ring is right behind the 52mm filter. Double yuck. If you can stick to auto-focus, though, it’s no problemo. There is no focus scale. Did I say yuck yet? The auto-focus DOESN’T have any chatter. Yay! Beats that evil 70-300 zoom. Speaking of auto-focus, this lens is unfortunately the poorest example I’ve seen from Nikon. It’s slow, and even refused to operate in “cloudy bright” conditions when I tried Live View at f/8.0 on the D7100. The 18-55 kit lens focuses much better. Stick to phase-detect focus. At least it didn’t have any focus chatter. Or did I already mention that? Nikkor 55-200mm zoomed out to 200mm with HB-37 hood Zooming out and using the hood makes it look like a much larger lens. When zoomed to 55mm and having the hood reverse-mounted, it stores away in a really small space. Vibration Reduction (VR) This version of the lens has VR; the original version didn’t. I was able (sticking to decaf) to get about half of my shots sharp at 1/100s with NO VR while zoomed to 200mm. Using VR, I could go to roughly 1/50s. I even got one sharp shot (out of 5) at 1/13s with VR ON. If the rule of thumb is 1/(35mm focal length equivalent) limit, or 1/300s then you could say the VR is good for about 2.5 stops. Everybody is different in how they support the camera while hand-holding it, so your mileage will vary here. I determine “sharp” versus “un-sharp” by photographing a resolution chart at slow shutter speeds and measure where the resolution (MTF50 lp/mm) drops by about 10% from maximum. I don’t know if there is some industry standard on VR effectiveness, but what counts for me is when pictures just start to show some blur, and I like to do it by the numbers. I haven’t figured out how to calibrate my level of nervousness with hand-holding, so this VR business is literally “hand waving”. Oh, also, I test at the longest focal length (200mm). Resolution Testing This review is looking at a single copy of the lens. Yours will be different, but hopefully ‘similar’. These tests were done using a Nikon D7100 (24 MP) with unsharpened 14-bit compressed RAW format. Resolution is a 2-dimensional thing. The tests that follow show you how resolution varies throughout the frame. If you ignore the corners, then resolution is really quite good. About time I said something positive about this lens, isn’t it? Also, the sagittal direction is really, really good. The meridional direction, on the other hand, is really quite terrible and is the culprit in dragging down the MTF50 numbers. I have a few shots below that demonstrate what I’m talking about. You’d swear there was severe motion blur in the pictures, but it’s just the meridional direction optical aberrations. I use a (free!) program called MTF Mapper from here to measure lens resolution. The download site also has files for printing out the resolution targets (mine are A0 size on heavy glossy paper (‘satin’ finish seems to work just as well), dry-mounted onto a board). This program is covered in more detail in my MTF Mapper Cliff’s Notes article. The software is comparable to ‘Imatest’ in the quality of the MTF measurements, and it uses the “slanted edge” technology similar to ‘Imatest’, also. I can’t thank the author of MTF Mapper, Frans van den Bergh, enough. Visit his site and give him the praise he deserves. The chart design used for resolution tests orients all of the little black squares to be ‘slanted’ but they’re generally aligned in meridional and sagittal (think spokes on a wheel) directions to correlate better with the usual MTF plots you’re familiar with. There’s often a dramatic difference in sharpness between these two directions, and the chart photographs show it clearly. If you spot some small islands of resolution peaks/dips in the following charts, you can safely ignore them. Visually imperceptible variations in the surface of the resolution chart can show up rather dramatically in the plots, because the analysis software is exquisitely sensitive. What the resolution target looks like. Mine is mounted ‘upside down’. At long last, I’m getting around to some actual resolution results. Tests were done with “Live View” AF-S auto-focus (where possible), contrast detect, IR remote, VR OFF, and a really big tripod. For f/8 and beyond, I was forced to use manual focus using Live View at 100%, since it refused to focus automatically. I use the “best of 10 shots”; not every shot gets the same resolution results. All cameras operate on the “close enough” principle for focus, so many tests are needed to determine the best resolution that the lens can produce. 55mm f/4.0 APS-C Corner. Note Sagittal is MUCH better than Meridional The corner at 55mm f/4.0 shows how much worse the meridional direction is than the sagittal direction. Also note the vignetting (I don’t care much about vignetting, since it’s easy to fix in post processing). There is very slight chromatic aberration (this is the unmanipulated RAW view), which is also trivial to fix in post. 55mm f/4.0 center looks good 200mm f/5.6 corner. Good unless you count the meridional direction! Lens center 200mm f/5.6. Unusually poor dead center, but much better resolution just a little off of center. See 2D plots below for overall resolution view. Conclusions While not in the ‘pro’ category, this lens is still capable of producing some fine photographs, even wide open. If you can tolerate f/11, it’s capable of truly good shots. It’s all about knowing a lens strengths and weaknesses. For 200mm, it’s exceptionally portable and light. You can’t beat the price. I’d avoid low light levels; without a distance scale, even manual focus can be a challenge. The picture below gives you a hint of what the lens is capable of doing with a bit of practice. Sample Picture Rabbit at a dead run, 1/500s f/5.6 55-200mm at 200mm, ISO 400, VR ON, 37 feet. Very few shots require sharp corners. This shot has always been a favorite of mine, done with one of the cheapest and least glamorous lenses that Nikon makes. It looks quite sharp, even in a print I have that’s 36 inches wide. It was taken by my daughter, who got her amazingly fast reflexes by competing in fencing (foils) competitions for years. Try shooting wild rabbits on the run and you’ll appreciate the shot even more. #review

This review will emphasize the lens MTF50 resolution performance and how well the lens auto-focuses. I was feeling guilty about not writing a review of what is probably the most populous Nikon lens of the modern age. So here it is. The lens is so light that it feels like it’s filled with helium. It’s supplied with a lens cap and an end cap and … nothing. The lens has a plastic lens mount and no rubber seal. Exactly as you’d expect. So what DOES this lens have? It has resolution. And it’s my go-to lens for infrared. Large, quality infrared filters are devilishly expensive, so the 52mm filter threads on this lens are a welcome sight. Focus This lens won’t let you override auto-focus with the focus ring, which I used to think was a ‘given’ with AF-S. Wrong. You have to switch the lens to “manual” focus. Major complaint here. The auto-focus fine-tune on this lens is ZERO at 55mm, but it’s -4 at 18mm (these numbers are for my D7100, but different on the D7000). Since this isn’t a Sigma lens with the ability to fine-tune at various focal lengths and distances, I’m kind of stuck unless I stop the lens down to f/8 or so. I decided to split the difference and set the fine-tune on -2. The skinny plastic focus ring is right behind the 52mm filter. There is no focus scale. Given this meager working set, it can be tricky to manage getting the lens focused, keep the focus ring steady, and screw on an infrared filter. The auto-focus DOESN’T have any chatter using my usual AF-C and rear focus button. Yay! Speaking of auto-focus, this lens is more in the ‘turtle’ category than the ‘rabbit’ category. At least it eventually gets there. I exaggerate, of course. Nikkor 18-55mm on the D7000. Using my classic (1974!) L39 filter. Get a load of that world-record-skinny focus ring knurling behind the filter! Speaking of the filter, it’s not one you’d want to point toward the sun. It’s uncoated, but it has been my friend most of my life and I could never get rid of it. Vibration Reduction (VR) This version of the lens has VR; the original version didn’t. Newer versions now have “VRII”. I was able to get about 2.5 stops of anti-shake, but my results vary a lot. Everybody is different in how they support the camera while hand-holding it, so any quote about VR effectiveness isn’t really a rule; it’s more of a guideline. Yes, that line was stolen from Jack Sparrow. Resolution Testing This review is looking at a single copy of the lens. Yours will be different, but hopefully ‘similar’. Some day I might get around to testing more of these things, since I have a few more laying around. These tests were done using a Nikon D7100 (24 MP) with unsharpened 14-bit compressed RAW format. Resolution is a 2-dimensional thing. The tests that follow show you how resolution varies throughout the frame. The resolution charts are split into “sagittal” direction (like wheel spokes) and “meridional” directions. These directions match the MTF references published by Nikon. What’s different, though, is the following values were MEASURED versus Nikon’s “theoretical” values. Also, the sagittal direction is quite good. The meridional direction isn’t nearly as good and is the culprit in dragging down the MTF50 numbers. I use a (free!) program called MTF Mapper from here to measure lens resolution. The download site also includes files for printing out the resolution targets (mine are A0 size on heavy glossy paper, dry-mounted onto a board). This program is covered in more detail in my MTF Mapper Cliff’s Notes article. The software is comparable to ‘Imatest’ in the quality of the MTF measurements, and it uses the “slanted edge” technology similar to ‘Imatest’, also. The author of MTF Mapper, Frans van den Bergh, provides this excellent software for FREE. Visit his site and give him the praise he so richly deserves. The chart design used for resolution tests orients all of the little black squares to be ‘slanted’ but they’re generally aligned in meridional and sagittal (think spokes on a wheel) directions to correlate better with the usual MTF plots you’re familiar with. There’s often a dramatic difference in sharpness between these two directions, except in the most expensive of optics. If you spot some small islands of resolution peaks/dips in the following charts, you can safely ignore them. Visually imperceptible variations in the surface of the resolution chart can show up rather dramatically in the plots, because the analysis software is exquisitely sensitive. What the resolution target looks like. Mine is mounted ‘upside down’. At long last, I’m getting around to some actual resolution results. Tests were done with “Live View” AF-S auto-focus, contrast detect, IR remote (via a cell phone), VR OFF, and a really big tripod. I use the “best of 10 shots”; not every shot gets the same resolution results. All cameras operate on the “close enough” principle for focus, so many tests are needed to determine the best resolution that the lens can produce. Corner at 18mm f/3.5 Center at 18mm f/3.5 Conclusions While definitely not a ‘pro’ lens, this lens is still capable of producing some fine photographs, even wide open. You can’t beat the price. Without a distance scale, even manual focus can be a challenge. With my copy, the longer focal lengths are the weakest (typical of almost all zooms, by the way). Corners aren’t stellar, but surprisingly good. The center is really good at all focal lengths; nothing to complain about here. My own style dictates that I use this lens at 18mm maybe 90% of the time. Luckily, it has great optical performance at that length. Sample Pictures 18mm f/10 Hoya R72 (Infrared) with Red/Blue color channel swap Sequoia 18mm HDR using Efex Pro2 HDR. Some chromatic aberrations visible #review

This is a pre-AI model, and was tested on the D5000, which Nikon specifically states is incompatible with this camera. Hmm. This lens was the reason many people bought Nikon. In its day, it was the portrait lens to get. I remember Linda McCartney using this lens to take pictures of Paul in a televised concert. It’s my understanding that she could afford to use whatever gear she wanted, seeing as her husband was already a near-billionaire at the time. This lens version had anti-reflection coating (the "C" in the lens designation). This is another lens that was used in the making of the original Star Wars movies. The MTF50 measurements presented below, being produced from a 12MP camera, don’t look as high as more modern high-resolution sensors. This lens won’t fit my other cameras, and isn’t one that can be updated to “AI”, either. Focus Silky smooth, but totally manual. When you could get cameras with split-prism focusing screens, focus was a breeze. With cameras these days, manual focusing is a lot tougher. Such is progress. I had thought the D5000 “rangefinder focus” would be the answer, but it won’t work for these manual lenses. Oh well. Nikkor-P C 105mm f/2.5 with HS-4 hood on D5000. An elegant lens. Resolution Testing These tests were done using a Nikon D5000 (12 MP) with unsharpened RAW format. Resolution is a 2-dimensional thing. The tests that follow show you how resolution varies throughout the frame. Also, the sagittal direction is really, really good. The meridional direction isn’t as good, but is still better than most lenses. I use a (free!) program called MTF Mapper from here to measure lens resolution. The download site also has files for printing out the resolution targets (mine are A0 size on heavy glossy paper (‘satin’ finish seems to work just as well), dry-mounted onto a board). This program is covered in more detail in my MTF Mapper Cliff’s Notes article. The software is comparable to ‘Imatest’ in the quality of the MTF measurements, and it uses the “slanted edge” technology similar to ‘Imatest’, also. I can’t thank the author of MTF Mapper, Frans van den Bergh, enough. Visit his site and give him the praise he deserves. The chart design used for resolution tests orients all of the little black squares to be ‘slanted’ but they’re generally aligned in meridional and sagittal (think spokes on a wheel) directions to correlate better with the usual MTF plots you’re familiar with. There’s often a dramatic difference in sharpness between these two directions, and the chart photographs show it clearly. If you spot some small islands of resolution peaks/dips in the following charts, you can safely ignore them. Visually imperceptible variations in the surface of the resolution chart can show up rather dramatically in the plots, because the analysis software is exquisitely sensitive. What the resolution target looks like. Mine is mounted ‘upside down’. Finally, I’m getting around to some actual resolution results. Tests were done with “Live View” manual focus at maximum magnification and IR remote. I use the “best of 10 shots”; not every shot gets the same resolution results. Corner, wide open at f/2.5 target squares cycles/pixel. Sagittal beats meridional. Center, wide open at f/2.5 target squares cycles/pixel. The corners aren’t really good until f/4.0, but the center is terrific at all apertures until a little beyond f/16. You don’t want to use f/16 or beyond if resolution is important to you. Diffraction kills sharpness. I didn’t bother to measure, although this lens lets you set the aperture all the way down to f/32. The resolution of this lens leaves almost nothing to complain about. The corners, which are a “don’t care” nearly all of the time for most people, need f/4.0 or more. Conclusions If you’re a “manual” kind of person who likes to be in charge of what is going on, then this just might be the “it” lens for you. Bear in mind that the lens mount doesn’t permit being mounted on the latest Nikons, and this version cannot be “AI converted”. I have always enjoyed using this lens for portraits, and it gives you enough working room that your subject is invariably more at ease. You can’t exactly quantify it, but this lens just feels right. Sample Picture Crop from a head shot. The eyes tell the story of this lens. #review

It might seem shocking at first to see that your full-frame camera can have poorer lens resolution scores than the cheapo APS-C sensor. Here’s what is probably going on. Your small-frame sensor probably has smaller pixels than that full-frame camera does. Smaller pixels means more pixels per millimeter on the sensor, and hence more lines per millimeter, too. Here’s a specific example. Let’s compare the D7100 to the D610. Both cameras are roughly 24MP, so you’d think that they would score about the same. D7100 4000 X 6000 pixels, and has dimensions of 3.92 microns for each pixel. The D7100 sensor itself is 15.6 mm X 23.6 mm. D610 4016 X 6016 pixels, with 5.95 micron pixels and is 24.0 mm X 35.9mm. Let’s look at some resolution measurements, using the same lens at the same f/stop. Here, I’m using the Sigma 150-600 at 600mm, f/6.3. D7100 with Sigma 150-600 at 600mm f/6.3 tops out at MTF50 of 40 lp/mm D610 with Sigma 150-600 at 600mm f/6.3 tops out at MTF50 of 34 lp/mm Did I get ripped off?? Why is the resolution so much worse with the D610 compared to the D7100? The secret lies in the pixels. There are less pixels per millimeter in the D610, and therefore less MTF50 lp/mm resolution. But there are more millimeters in the D610 sensor! The key measurement of interest here is in line pairs per picture height (lp/ph). The math: lp/ph = lp/mm * mm_of_height The D7100 sensor height is 15.6 mm. The D610 sensor height is 24.0 mm. For the above measurements, the D7100 measures 40 lp/mm * 15.6 mm = 624 lp/ph The D610 measures 34 lp/mm * 24.0 = 816 lp/ph. So, the D610 wins after all. It has a ‘score’ of 816 and the D7100 has a ‘score’ of 624. More total lines of resolution in the photo for the D610. But wait, there's more: D610 pixel area = 35.4 square microns D7100 pixel area = 15.4 square microns This means that the D610 pixels can drink up more than twice the light per pixel, which makes for vastly superior low-light and high-ISO abilities. You can also achieve narrower depth of focus with the full-frame sensor, so you have more options photographically. Feel better now? #howto

This is a basic test to perform before the return date expires on your new lens. Keep this test in mind if you ever accidentally give your lens a hard bump, too. This idea comes from Roger Cicala at this link: It’s cheap and easy to perform. The trick is to get your photos properly out-of-focus. I never thought I would give anybody that kind of advice. Also, you’ll want to under-expose your shot, since camera meters aren’t very smart about subjects like this. Use notebook paper reinforcing rings stuck onto black construction paper. What you want is to get an idea of how the corners differ from the center and from each other. I fortunately don’t have any lenses with gross de-centering, so my shots show nice symmetric fuzzy circles. According to Roger, there are very few lenses (some super-wides and mega-zooms) that might give a false-positive bad result. It’s not important if your shots are out of focus in front of or behind the rings. What you do want is for the middle of the rings to still show just a little black. The following shots demonstrate an 85mm lens and a 600mm lens test. 85mm lens f/1.4 Len Centering Chart properly out-of-focus 600mm f/6.3 All circles are boringly perfectly circular. Look for circle characteristics that aren’t symmetrical; depending upon your lens, it’s expected that the corners won’t look exactly like the center, but each corner should demonstrate similar characteristics to the other corners. Chart too out of focus. Centers have gone from black to white. I prefer to shoot lenses wide-open for these tests, which will tend to magnify any lens faults. There you have it. An easy, inexpensive lens-screening test. Remember this test when you buy your next lens to give it a quick once-over. May your circles be symmetric. #howto

Many of you are aware that you can use the beloved 35mm f/1.8 DX lens with an FX sensor. I have an on-going love affair with this lens, but if anybody mentions it to my wife, I’ll flat-out deny it. There are many discussions about the ‘vignetting’ levels when you try this lens on FX, but there is precious little data on the “corner sharpness” when you decide to misuse/abuse this lens by mounting it on an FX body. Not to mention how the focusing distance affects vignetting. This article explores the practicality of using the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens with an FX sensor. The news is good. You don’t need to abandon what (to many) is their absolute favorite DX lens that Nikon produces. The coverage (the image circle) of the 35mm f/1.8 DX shows how this lens is an over-achiever. It goes above and beyond what is required for a DX sensor; it’s almost as if Nikon designed this lens for FX, but accidentally labeled it as “DX” instead. Almost. To be honest, the corners do get a bit dark, especially when the lens is focused near infinity. The secret sauce is to use the “vignette control” in image-editing software to lighten corners, and to not stop down the lens too much. The post-processing solution isn’t perfect, but for many photographs, it will make it turn vignetting into a “don’t care” situation. Believe it or not, the corner resolution isn’t that bad, either. It’s not as good as an “FX” lens, but most people won’t even notice the difference between this “DX” lens and an “FX” equivalent. At a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the size and a fraction of the weight. The bottom line, assuming that you want to be able to focus at infinity, is to keep your lens between f/1.8 and f/4.0. This isn’t much of a hardship. If you want to stop down further, then yes, you’ll need to crop a bit, but only just a bit. 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX mounted on an FX Nikon D610 Since talk is cheap, let’s look at the data. Nikkor 35mm AF-S DX at f/1.8, with no distortion correction, using Nikon D610. You can barely make out any vignetting in the resolution chart (4.6 feet away). The vignetting was corrected using Capture NX2, but the correction is almost identical using other tools, like Photoshop. You can tell there’s some barrel distortion, though, so let’s try to fix that next. Nikkor 35mm AF-S DX at f/1.8, barrel distortion removed, Nikon D610. Now, there’s no visible distortion and any vignetting is almost gone. For normal photography, you’d not notice any vignetting. Nikkor 35mm AF-S DX at f/4.0, vignetting/barrel distortion removed, Nikon D610. Note that vignetting is still almost imperceptible at f/4.0, and I’ll bet nobody would be complaining about edge sharpness, either. You can even get away with f/5.6 and not have vignetting trouble, unless you try to focus at a long distance. I'd say that the vignetting here is about the same as the Nikkor 18-140mm AF-S DX lens on a DX camera. Nikkor 35mm AF-S DX at f/1.8, focus near infinity, Nikon D610. No free lunch. Now, it’s time to look at some warts. The picture above was focused near infinity, and the lens had both a hood and a UV filter on it. Cropping is becoming a necessity under these conditions, but the angle of view after cropping still far exceeds the Nikon in-camera “automatic DX cropping” that the camera offers. Using a UV filter and a hood don’t make a perceptible difference with vignetting; the lens image circle is the limiting factor. Resolution So, how does the resolution at the FX frame edges stack up? The following charts tell all. MTF50 lp/mm at f/1.8. The center, of course is already terrific. Corners aren’t. MTF50 lp/mm at f/2.8. The center is very, very good. Corners still aren’t. MTF50 lp/mm at f/4.0. The center is stellar. Corners are now acceptable. Conclusion With only a few concessions, this lens is quite useable on FX. Speaking for myself, it’s a keeper for either DX or FX. #review

It’s well-known that the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX will work on an FX camera. What isn’t well-known is the corner resolution performance on FX. This discussion is valid for both the original “Pro DX” and the “Pro DX II” AF-S versions, which have the same optical formula. See my original review of this lens (on DX, of course) here. Did you know that you get nearly zero vignetting at 16mm on FX, or that this is actually a wider angle of view (16mm FX) than you can get on your DX camera at 11mm? Your DX camera only sees the equivalent of 16.5mm on an FX camera while zoomed to 11mm on DX (a Nikon DX camera, that is). The Nikon DX has a 1.5X crop factor, so (1.5 * 11) = 16.5. Many people have said that the Tokina is usable in the 15mm-16mm range, but that’s not what my testing shows. 15mm starts to show vignetting, so I personally wouldn’t use the 15mm focal length. I just treat the Tokina as a “16mm prime” when mounted on an FX body. This lens isn’t sensitive to the focus distance causing a change in the amount of vignetting, so you don’t have to worry about that. I’m even able to use a “thin” UV filter and the lens hood while at 16mm on FX. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens mounted on the Nikon D610 FX camera First, let’s use an A0-size resolution target to evaluate resolution. I use the MTF Mapper software to evaluate resolution, and this is a picture of the resolution target designed for it. Tokina un-corrected resolution taget at 16mm f/2.8 shows minimal vignetting. Tokina corrected resolution taget at 16mm f/2.8 shows minimal distortion. Tokina at 16mm f/2.8 center resolution is already good, but corners are well behind. f/4.0 center is excellent, but corners still aren’t much improved f/5.6 shows pro-level center performance. Corners are still a bit weak. \ f/8.0 This is the best overall performance aperture setting f/11.0 Still very good overall performance. Some diffraction is setting in. Tokina at 16mm, focused at infinity. Corners have no vignetting problems Tokina at 16mm. Excellent edge-to-edge. Distortion is minimal. Conclusion Honestly, you wouldn’t know that Tokina didn’t make this lens for FX, as long as you park it on 16mm. Vignetting, resolution, and distortion are all well-controlled. I can say without any hesitation that this lens is fantastic for use on both DX and FX cameras. #review

You may have already read my article about using manual mode with your external flash, which allows you to shoot in “manual” mode but get automatic exposure via the flash. That article can be found here. That particular mode of operation is for when you have a fixed ISO setting, which is the normal case while using "manual" mode. What about manual mode without flash? It turns out that you can still get ‘manual mode’ to provide automatic exposure. You make this happen by selecting “Auto ISO sensitivity ON” in the “Shooting” menu (on Nikons, of course). You can see this mode at work in Manual by adjusting the shutter speed or aperture and observing the ISO indicator value changing to keep up with your selections. When you attempt to set your exposure to go beyond your maximum ISO limit you have set, you’ll see the exposure indicator show "under exposure" (and by how much) since it won’t go beyond your specified maximum ISO limit. Why on earth would you want to automate Manual Mode? If you’re using a long lens, it’s handy to be able to set a specific aperture and also force a (specific) high shutter speed. If you hate to give up automatic exposure just because you want to specify both an aperture and shutter at the same time, this is the secret sauce that lets you have your cake and eat it, too. I guess I must be getting hungry; that’s too many food references to ever put into a paragraph, let alone a single sentence. If you’re worried about getting quality results (and you should be) then you may not want to use this technique unless you have a camera with a sensor that can handle pretty high ISO values without getting excessive noise. I have had far more shots ruined by motion blur than I have lost due to image noise. If you have a long lens (e.g. 500mm or beyond) then there’s basically no such thing as too fast of a shutter speed to capture fast-moving subjects. To calibrate your “Auto ISO”, do some testing up front to determine what’s a reasonable upper-limit ISO. Two key points to consider here are color noise and loss of dynamic range. I always assume that I’m going to be doing some post-processing of my (RAW) shots anyway, so a small amount of color noise in the un-processed shot is completely acceptable. The upper limit of color noise should be where you can no longer clean it up in your image editor without excessive loss of resolution. You should consider noise reduction that only operates on the colors and not the ‘luminance’ channel; you will retain resolution but the image will have a slightly sandy-grained look. A camera like the D610 is still coasting with values like ISO 4000, but a camera like my D7000 is already a little short of breath at ISO 1600. Dynamic range goes out the window with high ISO; don’t use a technique like the one presented here for something like landscape shots, unless you’re forcing a particularly slow shutter speed. Some camera models offer “Minimum shutter speed = Auto”, where the camera will select the “1/focal length” in the “ISO sensitivity settings” menu (with additional adjustment options to get values like 1/(focal length * 2) ). I find that this type of shutter speed control is fine for static subjects, but is often unsuitable for fast subjects like flying birds or action sports. I’d rather crank up the shutter speed to cryogenic levels and leave it at subject-freezing speeds. This technique is, of course, not appropriate in all situations. As always, pick the right tool for the right job. #howto

I happened to be testing an old Nikkor 20mm f/4 (AI-converted). I thought I’d try some infrared shots, since this lens is supposed to be excellent shooting IR. I use the Hoya R72 IR filter, with the 52mm thread diameter. This 20mm lens is about the smallest and lightest FX lens Nikon ever made. 7.4 ounces light. The D7000, D7100, and D610 allow aperture-priority auto-exposure after defining the “non-CPU lens data” for this lens. I absolutely love its field of view (94 degrees) on the D610. You’d never miss auto-focus using a lens like this, since everything is typically in focus all the time. You still get the 3-stage focus indicator inside the viewfinder while manually focusing. Still, 20mm on a DX camera isn’t that wide; my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 has no reason to feel threatened here. The 20mm, of course, has the little red dot on the focus scale for infrared focus compensation. Back in the day, Nikon really paid attention to stuff like that. Manual-focus lenses are actually superior to auto-focus lenses for shooting infrared with a filter like the Hoya R72, since you can’t see through the viewfinder. You frame and focus (and use the lens focus scale red-dot IR shift) before attaching the filter. Those of you who have gone through the pain of framing/pre-focusing a ‘G’ auto-focus lens and then mounting an IR filter know what I’m talking about. After all of those digressions, back to the subject at hand: IR shooting comparisons. The D7000 IR results indeed look excellent. Absolutely nothing to complain about here, aside from the gripe about the narrower DX field of view. I was shooting at f/11.0, 15 seconds, ISO 250. (“Sunny 16” rule would have been 1/500 at f/11, ISO 250. IR needed 12 stops more light!) Nikon D7000 using Hoya R72 with Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI-converted lens. Excellent Now, for the D610 infrared results. How to describe what I got? Epic failure comes to mind. Totally unusable. It appears that the light baffling and anti-reflection coatings inside the D610 act more like a mirror in the infrared spectrum. In comparison, this 20mm lens is wonderful for regular-light photography on the D610, especially for landscapes. Nikon D610, Hoya R72, Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI-converted lens. Gross. Next, I head for my D7100. Terrible. Exact same light baffling and anti-reflection coating problem in infrared. Nikon D7100, Hoya R72, Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI-converted lens. Gag me. Note the terrible horizontal glare across the entire frame for both the D610 and D7100. The Nikon D7100 misbehaves in a nearly identical way to the D610 when shooting infrared. My guess is that the camera internal baffling and anti-reflection coatings actually reflect instead of absorb infrared wavelengths. Ahh. I bet it's something wrong with the 20mm lens, you say. I bet the problem goes away with a different lens, you say. There's no way the D610 and D7100 could let me down this badly, you say. How could the D7000 possibly be superior to the D610 and D7100 in any way, you say. I tried using the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D with the Hoya R72 IR filter on the D610, since I’m apparently a glutton for punishment. Big nasty hot spot in the center of the picture, in addition to the terrible horizontal banding flare. Having used this lens in the past for infrared, I know it’s not the lens’ fault. I have to conclude that the D610 is useless for infrared photography. I didn’t have the heart to try this same lens on the D7100; I know the results would be the same. Now, the secret sauce to making the D7100 and D610 succeed with IR photography: you absolutely need to cover the viewfinder eyepiece with the little "DK-5" eyepiece blocker. Unlike the D7000, D60, D50, and D500 cameras I have tested, the light baffing in the D7100 and D610 seems to be inferior. You can clip the DK-5 onto your camera strap so you don't lose it, and you don't even need to take it off of the strap to slip it over your viewfinder! 50mm f/1.8 AF-D on the D610, HoyaR72 filter. Still gross and unacceptable. The Nikon D7000, as with all modern digital cameras, (that haven’t been converted to infrared) is very insensitive to infrared. The filter on top of the image sensor screens out almost all of the infrared wavelengths. Older camera sensor filters (like the D50 and D60) were much better at passing IR (a few stops better, at least). Aside from long exposure times, the D7000 provides top-notch IR results. Just keep in mind that the Bayer sensor only has a quarter of the photo sites sensitive to red, so your camera resolution is essentially divided by 4 as well. Nikkor 20mm f/4.0 AI-converted, on a D610. It's only a little bigger than a body cap. Moral of the story: don’t ditch that D7000 if you do infrared photography. For the D610 and D7100 (and probably the d7200), always use the little DK-5 viewfinder eyepiece blocker. By the way, I typically use Nikon Capture NX2 to convert my 'deep red' RAW shots into the samples you see above. I can't get the D7000 to succeed at measuring a scene to get "preset manual" white balance with infrared, although the preset measurement works for a D50 and D60. I use the Capture NX2 "Camera Settings", "White Balance", "Set Gray Point", "Marquee Sample", "Start", then rectangle-mouse-select the whole picture, then click inside the selection. This is a quick and easy way to get the picture really close to what the in-camera "preset manual" white balance procedure achieves for regular photography. Once the editing steps are entered, just save those steps as a batch process. The batch process can be run on a whole folder of IR shots, to quickly get everything converted. #review

This article is an evaluation of the old manual focus 20mm f/4.0 lens that has been AI-converted. The conversion makes it possible to get automatic exposure on the better Nikon digital cameras, including the D610 with an FX sensor. The 20mm f/4 was manufactured from 1974 through 1978, back when Nikon was the big man on campus in photography. Mine was purchased in 1975, and virtually never came off of my Nikon F2 when I was back-packing (unless I did some macro shots). Small, light, sharp, tough, elegant, and wide; almost exactly like the ideal woman, except perhaps for the ‘wide’ part. This 20mm lens is one of the smallest and lightest FX lenses Nikon ever made. At 7.4 ounces, you hardly notice it’s there. It's about 1.4 inches long, like a thick body cap. Cameras like the D7000 series and D610 allow aperture-priority auto-exposure after defining the “non-CPU lens data” for this lens. I absolutely love its field of view (94 degrees) on the D610. The lack of auto-focus using a lens like this isn’t a hardship, since everything is typically in focus all the time. You still get the 3-stage focus indicator inside the viewfinder while manually focusing with the better Nikons. The 20mm, of course, has the little red dot on the focus scale for infrared focus compensation. Back in the day, Nikon really paid attention to stuff like that. One of my main uses for this lens is infrared, but unfortunately cameras like the D7100 and D610 are essentially useless for infrared (see this article: ). My D7000, however, works perfectly for infrared with this lens (using the Hoya R72 52mm filter). Manual-focus lenses are actually superior to auto-focus lenses for shooting infrared with a filter like the Hoya R72, since you can’t see through the viewfinder. You frame and focus (and use the lens focus scale red-dot IR shift) before attaching the filter. Those of you who have gone through the pain of framing/pre-focusing a ‘G’ auto-focus lens and then mounting an IR filter know what I’m talking about. Focusing is still silky-smooth, unchanged since the day it was manufactured. The focus scale is a thing of beauty. I have every reason to believe that this lens will last not just a lifetime, but multiple lifetimes. Although it works without vignetting, be careful using a polarizer on this lens; the sky will look too un-even because of the wide field of view. 20mm f/4 Nikkor AI-converted on the D610. Sweet. Resolution Tests I test lenses using the MTF Mapper software and the recommended resolution charts (printed to A0 size and dry-mounted). The article here explains the software and its use. As you’ll see, you are going to want to stop down to f/8 or more to get the corners you want. The center is already very good at f/5.6, and only gets better as you stop down. Avoid going beyond f/16, because of diffraction. All tests were done using the D610, with 24 MP (5.95 micron pixels). I only shoot un-sharpened RAW for the resolution tests. To convert the MTF50 lp/mm measurements into LP/PH, simply multiply readings by 24.0. To convert into LW/PH, take the LP/PH values and multiply by 2. Sample Photos Sun just out of frame. Palm fronds near frame edge are sharp, D610. The “wavy” distortion is quite minimal, D610. Infrared, Hoya R72, D7000 Conclusion If you're willing to stop this lens down to f/8 or f/11, the results are about as good as any ultra-wide lens made today. You won't find a more compact lens anywhere. I love that it uses 52mm filters, too. This has become my go-to lens for infrared photography. My D610 and D7100, by the way, are basically useless for IR unless I put the DK-5 eyepiece cap over the viewfinder. My other cameras are fine without the cap, unless I switch to my 850nm IR filter, which requires exposures of 2 or 3 minutes; all cameras need an eyepiece cap when exposures get that long. I understand that this lens is a bit rare these days; I have no intentions of ever selling mine. #review

This article will show you how to use the mtf_mapper_gui.exe program to measure axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberrations. Longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) is the optical problem of focusing different colors of light at different distances along the optical axis. My other article about MTF Mapper is located here . The other article is about MTF50 resolution measurement and focus calibration. Be aware that you need to use separate charts to make separate measurements (lens MTF50 resolution, focus calibration, or LoCA analysis). Also be aware that measurements depend upon the color of light used while photographing the targets (I used outdoor lighting with a clear sky in the sun). LoCA differs from lateral (transverse) chromatic aberration, which instead spreads out different colors perpendicular to the lens optical axis. Lateral chromatic aberration typically shows up as purple corners in the photograph; you won’t see it in the center of the image. Lateral chromatic aberration is simple to fix; most modern cameras can even automatically fix it in-camera. Longitudinal chromatic aberration is more difficult to correct, although programs such as Nikon Capture NX2 can largely mask its effects. Axial (longitudinal) aberration diagram, courtesy of Wikipedia.org LoCA can rob a lens of resolution, since some colors will be in-focus and some colors will be out of focus. You can recover the resolution by stopping the lens down until all visible wavelengths are in focus, but artistically this is often a poor option. A common visual effect of LoCA is seeing magenta instead of white in specular reflections on the eye. If you’re interested in evaluating how much LoCA a lens has, then the MTF Mapper program can help you measure it, and the program is free at the time of this writing. The MTF Mapper program author is Frans van den Bergh. His software and printable test charts are available here. Frans comes across as a ‘brainiac’, and his documents can take your breath away. They’re worth a read, though, even if you can’t grok 100% of their contents. More of his writings about image analysis topics can be found here. If you like his stuff as much as I do, please let him know! I’ll bet Frans has spent a gazillion hours working on this software, and he deserves all the praise we can give him. I’m using version 0.5.7 of mtf_mapper_gui.exe for these tests. You need to print the proper chart and use the correct program preferences to get the desired measurements. The chart I used is called “mfperspective_a3.pdf” (printed on A3 paper), which is also available at the same site that you download the program. You’re supposed to rotate the chart 45 degrees about the vertical, with the taller vertical targets farther from the camera than the shorter ones. Mfperspective_a3.pdf chart photo. Chart rotated 45 degrees. The MTF Mapper program takes advantage of the fact that camera sensors are separated into red, green, and blue-sensitive pixels. The program can independently analyze single-color pixels or all of them together. By the way, half of all of the camera sensor pixels are sensitive to green, while 25% are sensitive to red and the last 25% are sensitive to blue. It turns out that human eyes are most sensitive to green, so having 50% of the pixels being sensitive to green makes pictures look ‘correct’. This kind of sensor design is called “Bayer”, named after the inventor Bryce Bayer who used to work for Kodak. Different combinations of the R,G,B pixels can recreate all of the colors we see. MTF Mapper uses a program called “dcraw” (included in download) that knows most camera “raw” formats, and is regularly updated for new camera models. Axial R,G,B Focus Measurement In the following test, I’m using the Sigma 150-600mm zoom. Big lenses typically have the most trouble with axial chromatic aberration, and they also tend to exaggerate any focus errors. Take a photo of the chart, aligning the camera focus sensor on the middle of the chart. Don’t worry if the focus isn’t perfect; what counts is the difference between the red, green, and blue color channels in the same photo. A perfect lens would focus all three colors at exactly the same distance. The largest aberration errors will be seen with the lens aperture wide open. You’ll likely get different measurement results as you change focal lengths, too. Set your camera for RAW mode, so that there are no in-camera compensations for sharpening or chromatic aberrations. Remember to rotate the chart so that it’s at about 45 degrees from the sensor, with the tall side of the chart target images farther away than the short images. MTF Mapper Settings Preferences to measure axial aberrations After getting a photo of the test chart, the program needs to be configured for the color to be analyzed and for the camera pixel dimensions. The Nikon D610 has pixels of 5.95 microns, but the D7100 has 3.92 micron pixels, for instance. The program needs to be run against the same picture three times, each time selecting a different Bayer color channel. Blue Bayer Channel focus results show focus is 14mm in front of the chart center. Chart close-up (green). The orange arrows are at the chart center. Green Bayer Channel shows focus is 5mm beyond the chart center. Red Bayer Channel shows focus is 4mm beyond the chart center. The results above indicate that the red and green colors are focused at almost exactly the same distance, but the blue channel shows focus is nearly 19mm closer than the green and red channels (at a focus distance of about 6 meters). The test results also show the MTF50 resolution, measured in cycles per pixel. The green channel is sharpest at .211 c/p (peak sharpness). The red and blue channels both measure about 0.197 c/p. This MTF50 measurement is only valid for the peak focus location; you should be analyzing resolution using the resolution chart (see the other MTF Mapper Cliffs Notes article). Evaluating the MTF50 Math MTF50 lp/mm = (c/p)* pixels tall / height_mm Line pairs/pixel height (lp/ph) = MTF50 lp/mm * sensor height mm. D7100: 3.92 micron pixels 4000 X 6000 pixel sensor (24 MP) 15.6mm X 23.5 mm sensor Green MTF50 = 0.211 c/p = .211*4000/15.6 = 54 lp/mm, or 844 lp/ph Blue MTF50 = 0.197 c/p = .197*4000/15.6 = 50.5 lp/mm, or 788 lp/ph Red MTF50 = 0.197 c/p = .197*4000/15.6 = 50.5 lp/mm, or 788 lp/ph Conclusion The MTF Mapper program is a great way to evaluate axial chromatic aberrations. This optical aberration is typically a bit mysterious to get a handle on, but now there’s an easy way to characterize it. When you can analyze by the numbers, then you can actually compare it against other lenses in a meaningful way. And you can’t beat the price. #howto

Sigma sells a USB dock that lets you update and customize their lens firmware. The (free) program used with the dock is called Sigma Optimization Pro. I have an article on it here: . Sigma has been providing firmware updates for my 150-600mm Contemporary (and also for the Sports version). The first update (1.01) improves the auto-focus speed (they claim up to 50%). The second update (1.02) fixes focus issues with the Nikon D500 used with a teleconverter. I bought the USB dock to enable in-lens focus fine-tune. This style of focus fine-tune goes way beyond any other lens manufacturers; it lets you fine-tune at 4 focal lengths and 4 distances per focal length, giving you a total of 16 fine-tune settings. This feature totally transformed my lens resolution from mediocre to stellar. Nikon’s (and Canon’s) focus calibration only lets you perform a simple global focus shift; this just doesn’t cut it for focus calibration. It is handy, though, when you mount the Sigma on another camera body, where the camera’s focus fine tune gets applied in addition to the Sigma in-lens focus calibration. My focus calibration fine-tune settings Auto-focus Firmware Changes I tried their auto-focus customization options (fast “Fast AF Priority”, medium “Standard AF”, or precise (slow)) when I first got the lens, but found the ‘fast’ algorithm wasn’t very accurate. I settled on the default “Standard AF” auto-focus speed, since I’m not willing to sacrifice resolution for speed. I didn’t notice any precision improvement trying their “precise” setting. It took me a long time, but I eventually got around to testing the new focus algorithms that were provided with the 1.01 version of the software. I noticed when I first loaded the new firmware that the default speed (Standard AF) was more responsive than it used to be, and have been happy shooting with that setting. It never occurred to me to re-try the “fast” auto-focus setting; big mistake. It’s great. Accuracy is now essentially the same as the medium “Standard AF” setting, and it is simply faster. It’s like I just got a new lens, but for free. C1 switch settings: focus speed, focus limits, viewfinder stabilization ‘effect’ C2 switch settings: focus speed, focus limits, viewfinder stabilization ‘effect’ Accuracy Comparison: High-Speed Auto-focus vs. Standard Auto-focus I used the MTF Mapper software to evaluate auto-focus accuracy. This test is a bit ‘statistical’ in nature, because it’s based upon a moving target. I lean on a tripod while hand-holding the lens at 600mm. This technique lets me get more reliable framing of my resolution target, but the lens is still “wiggling” quite a bit. I use back-button auto-focus and “AF-C” continuous focus. I also re-focus by pointing away from and then back onto the resolution target while AF is active. Note that the following MTF results aren’t as good as a firmly-mounted lens on a tripod and remote shutter release. With a long lens, even 1/2000 will have a tiny amount of motion blur when hand-holding. 1) MTF50 maximum results with “Standard” AF Speed, 600mm 1/2000s f/6.3 hand-held: 28, 28, 26, 28, 28, 26, 30, 32, 26, 24, 24, 30, 28, 28, 26, 26, 26, 28, 30 Average MTF50 maximum: 27.47 lp/mm 2) MTF50 maximum results with “Fast AF Priority” Speed, 600mm f/6.3 hand-held: 28, 30, 23, 24, 28, 22, 28, 26, 32 Average MTF50 maximum: 26.78 lp/mm Conclusion: There is no real focus accuracy difference using the “fast” auto-focus algorithm versus the “medium” auto-focus algorithm using the 1.01 or 1.02 firmware. So why wouldn’t you just leave it on “fast”? Sigma didn’t advertise that their accuracy got better with the new firmware, but I’m seeing a definite improvement in both speed and accuracy. Vibration Reduction “Optical Stabilization” Firmware Changes? The good news doesn’t end there. When I first got the lens, I experimented with using their vibration reduction (they call it “optical stabilization” or OS). They provide the usual ‘OS1’ for general hand-held use, and ‘OS2’ for panning use. I tested the lens using OS1 and shutter speeds beyond the normal VR upper-limit of 1/500. I found that the resolution was reduced when I tried 1/1000 by about 9%. As a result, I would turn off VR (OS) at high shutter speeds, just as I was taught to do for all lenses with VR. Using the new firmware (1.02) I’m not noticing any measurable degradation in resolution at high shutter speeds (all the way up to 1/8000)! This is just fantastic. I’ve always hated having to remember to turn VR on and off to accommodate my shutter speed changes. Now, I can just leave VR on and forget it. I’m going to have to re-test my other lenses to see if they really require me to turn VR off with higher shutter speeds or not. The moral of the story is don’t blindly believe the urban legend about always turning VR off at high shutter speeds. Test it first! VR Testing at High Shutter Speed Sample These tests were performed at 600mm f/6.3 using the “fast” auto-focus setting, hand-held, AF-C “back-button” focus. Shutter speed was 1/2000 throughout. Sigma lens Firmware version 1.02. Again, these MTF50 numbers are lower than when using a tripod with a remote shutter release; even high shutter speeds with a big lens aren’t as effective as a tripod for static subjects. OS1 Active MTF50 maximum: 28, 30, 23, 24, 28, 22, 28, 26, 32. MTF50 Average: 26.78 lp/mm OS1 OFF MTF50 maximum: 28, 26, 28, 28, 30, 22, 26, 24, 22. MTF50 Average: 26.0 lp/mm Conclusion: There is essentially no difference with stabilization active or not at this high shutter speed. I tried tests such as these all the way to 1/8000 shutter, without significant changes to MTF50 resolution when leaving vibration reduction active. Isn’t this great that Sigma comes out with these firmware updates? If only Nikon and Canon could catch up to these guys in making smarter lenses. #review