I have a 28-300 lens that I've been using ever since Nikon came out with it. I missed the 18-300 range on the DX version that I use on my crop sensor. This one gives me back some of that flexibility on my FX bodies.

Fundamentally this is a nice lens that does a good job. At the same time though, it's not as expensive as it might be so you do have to compromise a bit on IQ. If you really want quality go for the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 lenses. These are tack sharp and incredible but alas also really heavy. That's why I also use the 28-300, it's a lot lighter and the images are ok.

I have always been a strong advocate for truth in advertising. When it comes to models and cosmetics etc truth would go a long way to keeping people healthier too. I applaud the suggestion that such images should be marked as having been manipulated.

The only problem is that this isn't going to change anything. It was images like those that created a new definition of fashion and beauty. If you want to change this to a healthier image it's not enough to point out a picture is not real, it's important that it is different enough to start the process of defining the new beauty standard. If that is done new images might get doctored but the past ones at least will be forgotten.

That said though, photography is also an art form. It has many uses like capturing what something or someone looks like, but it also has the capability to illustrate a moment that is unreal, that is often the nature of art. When I visited the Louvre I did not see a label on the painting that said it was manipulated even though the artist had made many changes in its creation.

I think when we are talking about selling and marketing, the images do have to be honest but when it comes to photographic art, there should not be anything defacing the results.

There are differences between a macro lens and an ordinary lens. Common lenses focus on a curved field. Macro lenses focus on a flat field.

As a result I only use macro lenses for macro work. I have a few, a 60 mm f2.8, a 105 mm f2.8, a 150 mm f2.8, a 180 mm f2.8 and a 200 mm f4. The one I select depends on the working distance I need for the subject at hand. Among these my favourite is the 150 mm f2.8 and in those moments when it's kind of heavy I will switch to my 105 m f2.8.

I use the macro lenses only for macro taking advantage of the flat field.

I use all the other lenses I own for landscapes, portraits etc.

I think such conduct is good for us. Being confronted by some ignorant imbecile who is disrespectful and clearly stupid we tend to look really good. Their purpose is to demonstrate that the rest of us are truly amazing and that the speaker needs a telescope to look up to us.

Why are they like that? The have no confidence or self worth, so the only way to offset this shortcoming is to put others down. This makes them feel they actually have some value in this world. Alas it only makes them seem stupid but let's not tell them that or they will just try harder to put us all down.

As to satisfaction ... it makes them feel good for they have the illusion that their comments actually have some value and have generated some awareness in others. In fact all that happens is that they make a fool of themselves.

Back in the seventies when 35 mm started to blossom there was only one other competing standard when it comes to quality films and it was called medium format. Before digital 35 mm remained a key standard.

Once digital came onto its own APS-C became a standard too since most of the DSLR cameras had that kind of sensor. But now there was a problem. I started doing film back in 1970. After a period of time, about ten years, I got to the point where I intuitively knew what angle of view I could get from the different focal lengths. So buying a new lens became easy.

My first DSLR was a pain. I was constantly struggling with arithmetic to figure out what kind of an angle of view I could get from different focal lengths. My whole being was centred around 35 mm. When Nikon finally came out with a full frame camera (ie 35 mm) I finally reverted to the past. Like before I now knew exactly what the effect of any focal length is on my pictures. I also know exactly what lens to reach for depending on the subject.

I'm not unique, everyone who grew up with film has my problem too. So that's why lenses are constantly given 35 mm equivalents, so that people like me can relate to the lens performance.

As to 126 and 110, those were formats for consumers and they did not have the same following as 35 mm so they never earned a standard. 126 might have become a standard if it had taken off like 35 mm did and if it offered interchangeable lenses for its cameras. But it didn't. As to 110, that rapidly became a format or a standard that produced light compact cameras. But it did not compete with 35 mm and there were no interchangeable lenses. It was only served by point and shoot cameras.

If you look at lens construction, often it's the small lenses - fisheye, 14mm 24mm etc - that cost a lot more than a single focal length telephoto. The difference is the smaller ones have more glass elements and sometimes special glass too to ensure a sharp image. You will find that often there are as much as fourteen elements in the lens that are eventually mated to make nine of ten groups.

When it comes to long lenses the real challenge is to get a piece of glass that is pure and free from distortion. That's easier when you're cutting little lens elements and a lot harder when doing large ones. That too adds to the price particularly when the long lens is a fast one like f2.8 or faster.

Yes the grinding process is automated however it still takes a lot of time to grind a lens and if you have to grind thirteen lenses to make one, that adds up quickly as does the labour for assembling the elements into groups. Add to that sometimes you need a special glass to correct some defect and that glass is very expensive too.

I use three remotes. The simplest and cheapest is a coiled three foot cable one end that connects to the ten pin connector and the other end has the button to release the shutter. Any brand of this should do. I use this when I sit beside my camera mounted on a tripod and wait for an opportunity.

The second one I have is one from Nikon that can be programmed. I can set it to fire off a picture at regular intervals and also to start the process at a given time. It has a short cord, about two feet so it's not really practical for anything other than programming it.

I have a third one that is radio controlled. This one has a range of about seven hundred feet and does not have to operate line of sight. I tend to use that one for outdoor shots usually of birds. I set up the camera with a long lens and wait for a bird to fly towards the field of view. At that point I lean my finger on the remote and fire off some shots. I really love this one. One favourite application with this one is to set up camera up around the corner from my kitchen window and I place myself in my warm kitchen instead of in -30 degree weather. When a bird seems to be approaching I trigger the camera from inside the house.

There is another style too that has a very long cable, often fifty feet, and a button. That's a compromise if you don't want to spend the money for a radio controlled one.

Basically decide what you want to use it for and then select one that addresses that need.

Yes! You have set your camera for red eye protection. The first flash is intended to cause the subject's pupil to contract and the second flash takes the picture. Look in your manual how to set the camera to defeat this. It's usually buried in a menu of an on screen setting.

I should add too that it's a good idea to avoid this feature. Frequently people assume when the first flash fired that you're done and then they walk away just as the second flash happens. If you insist on using this feature tell your subject to not move until you say so.

I have that lens and the way I work around shadows is simple. I only use off camera flashes. When I mount one on the camera I place a diffuser on it and aim it for the ceiling. That does the trick all the time except when the ceiling is dark and/or too high.

In the case of dark and/or high ceilings, I have a big Metz that sits beside the camera. That one also gets bounced with a diffuser and the flash has a small additional flash head that shoots straight ahead as a fill flash. That too works perfectly in combination.

I thought I had a printing solution with a Brother colour all in one laser to which I would eventually add an inkjet for photos. The Brother machine turned out to be the most expensive printer I've ever owned, I went through piles of toner and other materials, so it had to go.

I replaced it with an eco tank printer from Epson, the ET-4550. This is also an all in one machine and it's a bit slower than that laser was however it gets me the best of both worlds, an ability to have a general printer and a photo printer all in one box. What's even more exciting is that this one seems to be the cheapest printer I've ever owned. They give you inks by the bottle at very reasonable prices.

I accidentally discovered eneloops after trying all kinds of other brands. It was love at first sight. After I discovered what they can do I bought two dozen and I've lived happily ever after. They are the best batteries I've ever owned. They hold a charge for a very long time, they hold more charge than other batteries, and they are highly reliable.

Aside from taking pictures I also have a workshop for wood working and many other crafts. The workshop taught me a good lesson years ago. There are always 10 in one tools available and they are often really cheap too. Indeed when you read the box it does allegedly to ten different things. Alas though, when you unpack it at home and finally put it to work it doesn't deliver on the promises. Often it breaks or is made in a way that doesn't allow the same effect as a specialized tool would. That lesson got me away from such tools.

I applied that lesson to photography too. I have several tripods. There is one that allows me to go flat on the ground for those moments when my insect subject is at the bottom. There are two in different weights that operate like a tripod should. I have ball heads, pan heads and three way heads each specialized for specific applications. I also have a very tall one that I need a step ladder to use.

Personally I suggest you decide what's important to you and get a tripod specialized to that priority. Later as your needs change get another specialized to another specific need. In this way gradually you'll have everything you need.

As to the one you want I agree when people say that is a risky unstable solution to holding a camera. However I do have a compromise. Most of my tripods have a hook at the base of the colum. If it didn't come with one I installed one. When I a happen to have the wrong tripod like in the middle of an unanticipated storm, I need something heavy to support the camera. I take a plastic grocery bag, fill it with rocks or sand, and hang it from the hook. That gives me a solid rigid solution that I can rely on that won't move. Try that technique if you must mount the camera off centre.

You are absolutely right in your observations. I am grateful to the ones who want to help and then do so.

As to the ones who are obnoxious, I feel sorry for them. They lack self confidence and self image so they try to convince themselves that they have value by criticizing everyone else. I discovered that when I started grade school and it's never changed since. What I also learned at the time was that we should thank these people. They are often so stupid they make us look amazingly good.

And the debaters? I think they fall somewhere in between. Sometimes as a thread unfolds someone is reminded of something and as a result digresses from the thread. These can be forgiven, we probably all make that mistake on occasion. Alas sometimes though they are like the others, eager to try to demonstrate that they have value when there is really nothing there.

What I also learned since grade school is that the world is full of all three types. So the last lesson for me was to learn how to ignore them. That makes like a lot simpler.

I have two sets of Kenko extension tubes both for Nikon. In ten years of using them I did have one go bad. Suddenly it wouldn't focus and the electrical connections seemed to be failing. Once in a while the aperture failed too. All the others work fine. So I'd try another tube to see what it does. It may be that you have a bad one which may need to be replaced.

There does not have to be a correlation between the number of contacts on the tubes and in the camera. The contacts you need are aperture and focus, a lot of other stuff isn't needed.

In terms of how to use them, if you're using a long macro lens - 150mm or 200mm - you can autofocus without too much trouble but use a single focus point to keep the focus on your subject. If you're using a shorter lens it's usually best to set the focus at minimum or maximum and then slowly move the camera in or out until you get a shart focus. This is done most effectively by using a tripod and a focusing rail ...

https://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=focusing+rail&tag=googcana-20&index=aps&hvadid=208333453589&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14562975573442235403&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9000894&hvtargid=kwd-307172291173&ref=pd_sl_6utnxu6ngx_e

Other than that just practice. It seems impossible and frustrating but with practice it becomes simple and you'll be amazed at what you can do with those tubes.

In the seventies when I started with film everything came with a printed manual and that manual explained why and when you want to use each of the controls. It also defined the photographic words it used so you could really understand. It was amazing what I was able to learn just from the manuals.

Now a few years back point and shoot cameras came without manuals but still had a CD. I happened to buy a Nikon P&S camera at that time to supplement my DSLRs. I wrote Nikon at the time complaining about the lack of a manual and asking them how the hell I'm expected to read the CD when I'm in the middle of the bush. Their reply was interesting. First they said I should just print it out but then there is a copywrite on their manuals so you can't do that. Then they explained that no one reads manuals so there is no point wasting money to print one. These days you also don't even get the CD any more, only a link to the manual which is a real issue for those who don't own a computer.

What also struck me was the differences. The manuals in the seventies explained each function, explained when to use it, and usually explained how to use it. By the time you were done with the manual you had a total understanding of the camera and the photographic theory associated with it. You even learned the language of photography because the manual defined all the terms it used.

Today the manuals are a lot thicker but they are also worse. They tell you what the buttons and menu items do but that's it. There is no definition of the words. There is no discussion on why you want to use a particular function, there is no discussion on how to get the most out of the camera controls. There is simply a shopping list of controls and a brief description of what each does.

The only real exception to this was a manual I got from Nikon a few years back. I bought their close up R1C1 macro flash. That came with a lovely manual that not only described all the functions but also described their value and how to use them. The second half of the manual showed actual examples of what you could do with the options available.

In addition to this I got a colour booklet that had impressive macro shots all done with that flash. By the time you got through that stuff you had an intimate understanding of the product and exactly how to get the most out of it. I have actually downloaded these two documents and have shared them with many friends who had benefited from them since as well.

I think one reason no one reads manuals is that they often aren't in English and they really don't teach you anything at all. If manuals were like these two flash manuals I bet everyone would actually read them and probably more than once. Alas though, that would mean that the maker would have to do some additional work and the cost of the product might have to go up a dollar or two as well. I suppose that's too much to ask.

Instead I can imagine that in another decade there won't be any manuals at all.