The two are in completely different classes. The F-mount Nikon 50s are pretty sharp in the center and somewhat softer at the edges. They also have a lot of additional imperfections such as chromatic aberrations, coma, etc. The Z-mount 50 on the other hand is *very* sharp edge to edge wide open with extremely low distortion and other aberrations. Its optics are in the same class as the $4000 55mm Zeiss Otus.

The Sigma 50/1.4Art is also big, heavy and more expensive and is much sharper than the F-mount Nikon 50s, but not quite up to the image quality of the 50/1.8S.

The Z-mount 50 was also designed to have characteristics more amenable to video than the F-mount lenses such as quiet, speed-controlled focus.

There's a lot more to a lens than just its focal length and max f-stop.

That's not to say the F-mount lenses aren't any good. I love each of the 50/1.8G, 50/1.4G, 50/1.4D, and 50/1.4Art as each has an advantage -- a unique look, size and weight, and/or price. They all produce good images. But, the 50/1.8S is an absolute bargain if you are looking for something close to perfection.

No wonder the student got a zero, (1) was the smallest number. (It didn't say smallest per line.)

The problem with SSDs are that they are based on flash-memory, which wears out. The built-in wear-leveling, which distributes sector writes, can help in certain use cases, but the way most people out of a data-center tend to use SSDs, they'll wear out fairly fast. Festus's experience is fairly typical for what I've seen.

If you want to use an SSD, set it up either as a cache device or install it at a location where sector writes are relatively rare to get the most effective use from it. Used this way, they can both give fast read access as well as last a long time.

What's an img file?

You're not confusing the HTML IMG tag with an image file format are you?

I don't make side notes either so I completely understand.

I will note though that depending on the editor and how you work in it, it can be somewhat self documenting -- if the tool stores edits in an XMP file with history you can step through the history until the phenomenon occurs thus revealing the cause, or with layers and masks, you can simply turn off visibility of higher layers to see where the oddness occurs.

However, that only works for specific tools and practices.

Some things will just never be known. Thanks for entertaining my question though.

Good to know. Thanks.

Yes I saw the response, but was curious what PP step(s) might have caused it. It seemed like an interesting learning opportunity.

Did you figure out how that noise got there? -- Just curious.

The aperture loss is of course obvious going into it. Softness is not so obvious and would certainly be an issue. You are talking of the Tamron 2x TC with the Tamron 70-200/2.8 specifically since results depend on the details of the combination?

I expected the Tamron 2x TC to work well with their 70-200/2.8 with some, but not large, image and/or AF degradation. The Nikon equivalent combo seems to do pretty well.

Why?

Count me for the 1st too.

What caused that noisy-looking mess to the left of the lower main stock?

The closest you'll get, I think, to what you are looking for is the newly announced Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 .

Novoflex NIKZ/LEM ($260)
Shoten LM-NZ ($60)
Pixco LeicaM to Z ($18)
Rayqual LM-NZ
NEWYI LM_N.Z. ($36)
GABALE LM_NZ ($86)
Tinray LM_N.Z ($22)

There's a few.

As already mentioned, custom setting d8 is your answer.

I might add though that if the speedlight or transmitter you attach to the hotshoe is detectable by the camera (which means it uses more than just the manual center pin), the camera will automatically turn d8 off while attached. Thus, you might consider upgrading your flash/transmitter to something HSS and/or TTL capable. I know the Godox and FlashpointR2 HSS/TTL systems do the auto switch.

Another alternative worth, I think, considering is a 70-200/2.8 with a teleconverter. The lens is weather sealed, internal focus and zoom, very fast and precise focusing, and with a 2x TC would become a 140-400/5.6. That would compete pretty well against a 200-500/5.6 and you could avoid the dust problems.