And don't forget Adorama!

I don't know Nikon that well, but I believe your largest aperture is probably 3.5 on the 18-55, and 4 on the 55-200? Having been there with a lens with the same max. aperture, I think you'll be ok in Times Square doing night shots. That place is so brightly lit that even at 3.5, with VR (Nikon term for stabilization?) you'll be in great shape. Still, I'd tote the 35mm for low light/street photography. I'll guess it's a fairly compact lens.

So 18-55 plus 35mm for basic landscape shots. If you're going to want more zoom, then the 55-200 plus 35mm.

Enjoy!

Yes. Not super fast, but the image stabilization is superb, which makes up for it. It's excellent.

Agreed! I would only stick to the best online stores, i.e. B&H, Adorama, Hunt Photo, Camera Cottage (owned and operated by one of our fellow 'Hoggers) , and Cameta. I think Amazon is the only non-camera specific online retailer I would trust.

You'll be hard pressed to find a better, legitimate deal on that lens. Canon, as well as Nikon, Fuji, etc., carefully regulates selling prices on their high end glass. I'd be wary of any deal much better than what you have. B&H has that listed for $2049, which includes a $150 instant savings.

I also have the Bailey book. I haven't had the time to jump into it yet, but have already found some time-saving tips. I also own the X-t2. I've had it for a year and still am just scratching the surface of what this thing can do.

Thanks for the post!

The good thing about a monopod is that you're relying on it just to steady your shot and take the weight off. You don't need an incredibly expensive platform like you would need with a tripod. You do, however, need good leg locks to be sure it doesn't give on you when you're leaning on it a little!

I have an Oben (which may be B&H Photo's own brand) with a Sirui L-10 tilt head. It's a pretty heavy duty setup and heavier than you may want.

Most of the monopod heads will have the tilt function. Ball heads are ok but are unnecessary, and not quite as stable as the tilt heads (and more expensive!), unless you plan on shooting in portrait mode often.

Also, you're having a mirrorless will also mean carrying a lot less weight even with the 100-400. I have a similar setup, with a heavier body (Fuji X-t2 and 100-400) and would be comfortable using any of the aforementioned setups by other 'Hoggers in this thread.

Beautiful!!!

We owe you some photos from Rockefeller Center and Times Square......

[quote=Gene51]I don't understand why people consider load capacity when looking at tripods. Even <$75 tripods will support nearly everything short of a 600mmF4.

However load capacity is not an indicator of stability. I suggest you take a look at RRS and Gitzo, see what works for your purposes, then look for lower cost tripods with similar physical specs.

I did the same thing 10 yrs ago and ended up with a
Feisol CT-3472 for my 600mmF4. It outperformed my Gitzo Series 3 at the same price, and came close to matching the performance of a $1000, Series 5.

I would not suggest you consider anything with a head that costs under $200.

I picked up a Feisol CT-3442 for travel and hiking. It weighs 2.3 lbs has a load capacity (if this still matters to you) of 55lbs, and fits in a carry-on bag. I have used it for macro and with a 300mm lens with consistently good results.[/quot

Well said, as usual.

It seems that the residents have a legitimate complaint. If public ways are being obstructed and damage is being done to the turf, which the association owns, then I can understand their frustration.

That IS great news! I have quite a few Fuji lenses, but am looking at a macro. If Sigma can come out with Art primes for Fuji, then I'm very interested. I had one with my Canon cameras and the sharpness was amazing!

The 18-135 would be an excellent complement to your current kit. It's compact enough to have as a travel lens. Although it is only a f3.5-5.6, the image stabilization is excellent. It is reasonably priced for the superb quality that you get.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1058622-STUD/fujifilm_16432853_xf_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_r.html/mode/edu

This is the lens that lives on my X-t2. I also own the 18-55 kit and the 50-140. I have no complaints about the IQ from any of these lenses.

Amen on that Amen! The one thing that PP software cannot completely fix is lack of sharpness. Sure, you can manipulate it to maybe optimize the slightly soft appearance, but sharpness comes out of the lens. I have to agree that the Sigma 1.4 ART lens is amazingly sharp!

Hi Jim, I own the same camera and lens. You're going to be dealing with potentially very uncooperative (and possibly dangerous) subjects. If you want to isolate them, you can try your 18-55 and do a little cropping. The only fast prime i would consider is 80mm or longer. If you have to work with ambient light, the idea of a fast lens is pretty good, but I'd make it a zoom.

The 50-140 constant f2.8 is awesome! That's my primary sports lens, and it make a very good portrait lens, but it's about $1500.00.

I will second the endorsement of the 18-135mm. It's about $800.00. It's the lens that lives on my camera. It's not as fast, but the image stabilization is superb.

I also agree that flash is not a good idea, due to skittish animals. A constant light source would be best, but not necessary. The low light performance, at high ISO, is excellent.

All that being said, your photo looks pretty darned good. Unless you're having a GAS attack, I think you can pull it off with what you have.

OK, from the exif data for photo #1, you shot with a Nikon 3300, ISO 200, f1.8, 35 mm. That shallow depth of field is tough to pull off with a 35mm. Kudos to you for getting so close and on the floor! The focus is on the nose and not the eyes, which are out of focus(not an issue since they're shut, anyway). That means you have about a 6"(or maybe less) depth of field (maybe an inch or two in front of the nose may also be in focus, but we can't know that).

The key to controlling how influential your background here is depth of field. Although you think the background is too light and distracting, I think it's something that could easily be corrected by a little cropping, if desired. My eye immediately went to the point where the picture is most in focus, which is the nose. This is usually the case for anyone looking at a photo, especially of a close-up like this.

i like the shot the way it is because it tells the story of a dog relaxing in a cozy sunlit room. The background tells us where he/she is, without being distracting, because it's out of focus. If you eliminated the brightly lit part of the background, it would still be an interesting shot, but it would tell a different story.

Wesso's Repix shot, and the other PP suggestions are all good for further blurring the background, but I think if you continue to work with and learn more about aperture and composition, that'll make you better able to use all of the elements of the photo to accentuate what you want the viewer to see while composing the shot.

The bottom line is that you've effectively used depth of field to eliminate distractions and your focus is right where it should be.

I think the 2nd shot is just a bit underexposed and, without light and dark contrast, is less interesting.