I landed on this planet 20 years ago when my spaceship broke down. You don't happen to have any quanta-dueterium, do you?

That was a nice post. You must have a good keyboard.

You seem bitter. You must have some good lemons.

I won't be buying any more Adobe products due to their abusive pricing that force you into over priced and over engineered products for what photographers need.

Obviously, this deer does not like Golfers.

Because it is our normal photo banter delivered in a totally absurd conversation. At least more absurd than the usual.

As an intergalactic hobbyist, I use the Glitznork 2800mm f/-2.8, tentacle-held, on a Snagnobb body set to 128 Billion ISO. Please keep in mind, silly Earthling, that these are import restricted.

I have a Nikon 60mm Micro and a Tokina 100mm Macro. Both lenses are fine for non macro shooting, as sharp as any other primes, but do focus more slowly at times, especially when I forget to reset the 'choke.' :)

I got a great copy of this lens. I like the 28-300 on both DX and FX bodies. On FX, it makes a great walk around lens, and I can get nice close ups that approach macro capability. For portraits I get great boceh when shooting it long. The IQ that I get is fine for any application that I have considered it for. I have't had the opportunity to print larger than 8x10 with photos from the lens, but when I pixel peep it is almost as sharp as my 105 F/2 DC at similar focal length (my longest prime). It also compares well to my Tamron 28-200 f/2.8 Di VC.

On DX this lens does all of the above, plus it has an effective reach of 450mm, so I can shoot wildlife with it, and it does a great job. It saved me the cost of buying a dedicated wildlife lens and get shots that are by far good enough for the small amount that I do. I would not hesitate to use this lens on a DX body for sports, either.

This lens was not universally well-regarded by the critics (critics usually hate all in one lenses), but it has a strong following of users on the Internet who swear by it. If you can confirm that you are shooting at shutter speeds that should be sharp (remember that longer focal lengths require a faster shutter speed to get a crisp shot, even with VR), you might want to send yours in to Nikon if it is still under warranty. I agree with the commentators who think your copy of this lens might be the problem, not the lens model, itself.

Is it bokeh if nothing is in focus?

I had a bad experience attempting to get them to honor a quoted price more than ten years ago. My recollection is that they wouldn't let me buy the camera in question without an additional, expensive 'warranty'. I think it was illegal, but I did not have the time or energy to complain, and to whom? Now I have the Internet to warn you.

If I were in your position I would stay away.

Quite a few years back I took a night school photo class with an engineer. We were doing landscapes for a project and he brought in these painstaking wide angle photos of buildings in Russia, digitally flawless, every thing in perfect focus. Good God, those photos were boring. Most of the class were indifferent about his work.

I brought in a long exposure of a little creek. The running water was white and wispy because the exposure was so long. Since the water looked more like mist than water in the photo, there was this ethereal affect that most of the class loved. I was happy that the camera was a tool that I was able to use to express the sense of magic that I felt while contemplating that beautiful little creek. The engineer was NOT amused.

"But he CHEATED!!!" he said about my photograph. As if, by representing something that he could not see, I had somehow broken a law.

People with a limited sense of imagination and artistry have a difficult time understanding variable focus and depth of field in a photograph. They're of like people who lack a sense of humor. I don't expect that I'll be spending much time creating photos to soothe either of their limited sensibilities.

I have to agree about older Nikons, as well. I still like the D7200 and I prefer the 5500 for when I'm in a rough neighborhood. So I'm keeping that one even though I have the D500 and a D800. I'd tell him to go with a Sony RX100iii, but that is out of his budget. I keep one of them on hand when I shouldn't be carrying a camera.

After some great advice (thanks all), I told him to rent a camera or use his phone. No sense him having two cameras at home that he doesn't use enough.

I have a friend who just landed in Argentina without his camera. He wants to purchase a camera that will get the job done for his two weeks down there.

His price range is $300-400 USD.

I was going to recommend a Nikon D3400 with a kit lens, but then I realized he might be better off with a lower priced bridge camera. He is not a very experienced photographer, just a novice.

Any recommendations that would work for a novice photographer in that price range?

Thanks!

Another option: You might consider a Nikkor 50mm 1.4D. It is less expensive, very light and compact, and quite an incredible lens which will autofocus on your D7500 camera. I see no advantage of upgrading to the G version, myself, but the 85mm lenses are another story.