In the past, I have been pretty vocally critical of this lens. My statements were based on an honest trial and appraisal when I considered buying one a few years ago. Recently, however, I became the owner of one of these as part of the purchase of a package of several items. I have found the behavior of my lens to be different in several ways from the one that I previously tried out. My belief now is that it is a decent lens...better than my initial assessment, but still short of being a really nice lens, despite the Gold Ring designation awarded by Nikon.

Anyway...I have a question for owners and users of this lens. My copy occasionally fails to try to focus at shorter focal lengths. It's not that it can't see to achieve focus...it's that the process doesn't start at all...as if the lens is set to Manual Focus (but it's not...and neither is the camera). Sometimes continuing to try will eventually make it start, sometimes zooming to a longer focal length will do so. This behavior usually occurs at focal lengths of 28mm or less, but has occurred at focal lengths up to 50mm. It has also been observed on three different D500s, including one that is just back from Nikon with a Major Overhaul. The other symptom us that at 16mm, proper focus is achieved at an indicated distance of Infinity or greater (which is something I was accustomed to seeing on my Nikkor 18-200mm DX zoom.

My next step is, of course, to contact NikonUSA and possibly send the lens for repair, if such support is still available. My last checkpoint before doing this, though, is to ask here whether others have noticed similar bad behavior.

Sales and trades between friends can be great, or they can be really complicated.

The first and most important thing to establish is whether the friend is more important or the lens is more important. Hopefully, this will mesh with your friend's assessment of whether the money is more important or you are more important. Once that is acknowledged, then it would seem that open and honest discussion based on all of the parameters that have been suggested here should yield agreement on a price that makes everyone happy and preserves the friendship.

When I bought my D850 in 2018, I bought Sony XQD cards and a Sony XQD/SD card reader. Model number is MRW-E90. Both the cards and the reader are still going strong. There were some claims that Sony cards would not read in a non-Sony reader. I cannot speak to that, and I haven't heard it mentioned recently.

After Nikon updated the firmware to enable the D500 and D850 to utilize CFExpress Type B cards, I bought a Delkin reader and gradually bought some Delkin cards. Mine is a Delkin DDREADER-54. These cards and readers also have been serving without incident for several years.

Each of these readers also has a slot for SD cards. I do not know if they are still current models.

As noted in this discussion, a few folks seem to have found combination XQD/CFE-B readers that they say work for them. I have never had sufficient faith to use a device from a manufacturer or seller whose name I don't recognize as part of a critical link in a data management chain. Your risk tolerance may be higher than mine.

Good luck as you search.

Cameras are very complex systems. Design and manufacture of complex systems involves carefully balancing a whole host of trade-offs. That's why it is always interesting (and sometimes a little bit fun) to watch how "single issue foamers" sometimes get so knotted up in one line of a camera (or some other device's) specification sheet. Technological progress will usually eventually ease the problem, as advances help everything on both sides of the tradeoff, but that can take a while. And sometimes, the tradeoffs are associated with affordability, not capability.

In the early years of this century, we had at work an Olympus digital high speed video camera system that we used to analyze operating problems in our factory machinery. It could capture several thousand frames per second with a reasonably achievable level of lighting. It did not exhibit rolling shuuter or any other distracting artifacts. It did cost about $50,000.

Fifty years ago, when pocket scientific calculators were new, there was a big thing over precision of results. HP calculators worked with and displayed 10 digits. Texas Instruments scientific calculators also displayed 10 digits, but worked internally with 12 or 13 digits. The extra laces were called "guard digits," but were easily accessible by simply subtracting the visible ones. TI claimed that their calculators were "more accurate," despite the fact that both of them provided results with between 4 and 8 more digits of precision than were generally appropriate for engineering calculation that would be done on a hand-held calculator.

By the way...a foamer is an over-enthusiastic railfan. Comes from the situation where poirly treated or over-agitated water would "foam up" in the boiler of a steam locomotive, reducing its efficiency.

I think one reason the description tends to be called AI Photography is that painters and others in the art world have already said pretty clearly and vigorously that they will have nothing to do with AI. So the dust from that explosion has settled mostly over the photography world.

Thanks for the reminder. I try to keep my cameras current and the clocks correct. Whether there is an intent to assert copyright protection or not, there is a long list of reasons why it is a good idea to mark any work created with the creator's name and the date of origin. This was first impressed on me during the first week at my first job (with a large research and manufacturing company) 50 years ago. The validity of doing it has never changed, except perhaps to become even more important.

Yes. Occasional disappointment goes along with having freedom of choice.

In my experience, if there is truly a "need" for a lens (or anything else), there is no need to ask anyone else what to do or what to choose or what to buy. The choice will be obvious, or can be made to become obvious with a little research.

I have amassed a few lenses over the years. Exactly three of them were chosen based on a specific need. The first was my Nikkor 17-55 mm f/2.8 zoom which was a very necessary replacement for my very first digital camera lens...an 18-70mm Nikkor junker that was forever useless right out of the box. A little research and a couple of questions at the camera store led directly to the solution.

The second was a Nikkor 14-24 mm f/2.8 wide angle needed for a night sky workshop. For that, I needed a fast lens with a wide view and manageable distortion for stitching panoramas. Again, a little research and a quick to a different (although admittedly less helpful) camera store led to an obvious choice. The third time was when I needed a macro lens to take some photographs at work.

In each of those cases, I could have made a different choice. It would have also solved my problem. The world would not have ended, although it is possible that I might have been a little less happy at some point.

I don't do what other people do. There's nothing about anything I do that requires that I make other people happy. I don't care what they think about what I choose.

Be a little bit brave. Make a choice. Move forward. Quit looking sideways and backward.

It's on a label on the bottom of the camera in plain view without any extra effort. No space limitations. The seller clearly just doesn't want to divulge it. The question is just why that might be. If for some reason the label is damaged or obscured, the question is the same...why might that be?

"910" is more like a date code than anything else, but none of my Nikon cameras have ever had date codes. If that number is in the S/N location, perhaps the camera is a pre-production model. But I think the seller is being shady.

The OP describes himself as a retired pharmacist and wedding photographer. My guess is that he has devined the answer since pisting his question.

Let me think about that for a minute...hmmm...let's see...

Nope.

There are two problems here...the first is whether this is a gray market product or not. That carries its own set of problems, which are real and have been discussed here a number of times.

The second issue, to me, is actually more serious. The seller appears to be working to be intentionally opaque concerning the origin and status of the product. To me, this speaks either to the fundamental ignorance of the seller or the fundamental dishonesty of the seller, or both.

Far worse than being gray market, this camera could be stolen. In that case, if it were found and recovered, it could be taken from you without compensation. If stolen, it may also have been handled roughly and damaged.

You have been counseled to move on from this "opportunity." There is a pretty long list of reasons why that is very good advice.

Some us have a specific interest in shooting with older equipment occasionally. If you are one of us, there's nothing wrong with a D700. As time passes, however, the probability of finding a D700 or any other DSLR that you would really be willing to own gets lower and lower, making the search harder and harder. More and more of what is available has been ridden hard and put up wet, as we say in Texas. So the concern over repairability is not just in case something breaks later, it is also in case what you bought turns out to be not quite what you thought it was.

I am moving on from my oldest equipment. My D810 is now my oldest camera. It will pass out of support at any moment now. As soon as the Z7iii is introduced, support for the D750vwill end. All three major manufacturers of camera equipment have adopted Sony's strategy of supporting only the current model and one or two prior models in each line.

All of this together means that you need to really consider the big "what if." What if the camera that you bought as a simple curiosity or toy all of a sudden becomes your preferred choice for shooting? Are you going to be OK with that choice being a 17 year old orphan relic?

Which camera do you use most? Which is your favorite camera? The Z6ii and the D850 are very different cameras with very different capabilities, as you have apparently discovered.

Of the two cameras, which are you most likely to choose to use with a large, heavy, awkward lens?

Despite prevalent conversation here, your D850 remains a completely competent camera. It can do things that the Z6ii cannot even dream of. I'm sure that the reason you still have it is that you are well aare of that truth.

I have no business telling you which of the two lenses to buy. Neither does anyone else. But these are the thoughts I would consider as I decided for myself.

Lots of folks seem to be very happy with their D7000 or D7100. I expect that it is a good, solid camera, even though a 14 year old model. I just rehomed my last D300 (actually a D300s), so I do not have any particular aversion to older cameras. A quick look shows that they are still listed at quite high prices when in good condition.

The important difference from your D300s is that the D7000 has the consumer user interface, which is quite different from your D300s. That may or may not be a problem for you. A key "watchout" (I believe) is that the D7000 did not get a firmware update allowing it to work with the newest "P" lenses. That also may not be a problem for you, since those are generally low-end lenses.

There are probably not a whole host of advantages for you of the D7000. I think it was made and sold at the same time as the D300. Do not sell the D300s in favor of the D7000. It is a much more capable camera.

The Artist's Statement serves as your stand-in for each work submitted or displayed. If you were standing with the viewer, what would you want to tell him? Was there anything special about the conditions? Were you granted special access? If it's an animal, have you known that animal for 20 years? Why did you select this image instead of another one similar to it? Did you make any exceptional technical choices or adjustments to make it happen? Is it the house that your great grandmother was born in?

In other words, share a little bit with the viewer about why the image is meaningful enough to you that you wanted to share it. Provide a hint to him about why it just might be of interest to him as well. If your intent is for him to develop his own story, tell him so.