I realize that many people use a UV filter to protect their lens. First, the theory is that if you drop a lens, the front element is going to break. No. If you drop a lens, it's likely that you'll screw up the internal mechanics so it won't stop down. I know: alas, I've dropped lenses. The glass probably won't break, and if it does break, why would you assume the front element will be the one to go? Furthermore, if you have a lens hood, that will protect the front of you lens in case of a drop.

As somebody else has wisely commented, UV light only becomes a problem above 5000 feet. I live at 7,220 feet, with the surrounding national parks at 8,000-9,000 feet. My images are sharp, clear out to infinity, so I don't see the need for a UV filter. If it improves the photograph, I doubt the improvement is perceptible.

Similarly, if it degrades the image, that's probably imperceptible as well, although you're adding two extra surfaces, which, of necessity, will decrease the contrast. You can probably measure this scientifically, but if it's not perceptible, why bother?

On the whole, I don't think it makes much sense to buy a $1500 lens and then put a $10 piece of glass in front of it to take a picture, especially if you can't see that the filter makes any real difference.

You not only have to consider the optimum aperture of the lens, but also the depth of field you want in the image. If stopping down to your ideal stop, which could be around f/8, gives you a landscape background that's out of focus, then the small gain in sharpness at your focal plain really won't be worth much. In fact, I select my aperture based on the depth of field, not on the supposed optimum aperture. Next, you can sidle your camera to your desired aperture, obviously, by changing the ISO. It all depends on the camera, but for the Nikon D850, it's hard to tell ISO 1600 from ISO 200. At ISO 1600, there are a lot of things you can shoot at f/8 or f/11.

I don't think you'd actually be able to detect degradation of the image until you got to apertures in the f/32 range. But, indeed, most lens designers limit their lenses--few go down to f/32--to avoid that very problem.

What you have to do is determine how your "eye" tends to view things. Are you most comfortable with a normal lens (50-55mm), or with a wide-angle lens (35mm)? Put it this way, if you're a 50mm lens, do you find yourself backing up a lot? In that case, you probably want a wide-angle lens. Conversely, if you're using a 35mm lens, and you find yourself moving in a lot, that tells you that you'd probably be more comfortable with a 50-55mm lens. Cartier-Bresson used a normal lens, almost exclusively. Indeed, he walked around with a Leica and a total of one lens. That happens to be a good discipline, by the way, and obviously, it worked for him

Personally, I'm more comfortable with a wide-angle lens, so for me, 35mm is normal. And I have, on occasion, just gone out with one camera and one lens.


You'll notice that some of the answers you're getting give you both options. Obviously, if you've got a 24-70 zoom, then you have both a wide-angle lens and a normal lens. I'd go a step further and say, sure, use a zoom, but then study your best pictures and see whether you happen to gravitate toward a particular focal length. If so, and it's likely it will be so, then you can save on weight (and cost) and get a single-focal length lens that suits the way you happen to see things.

Most of the reviews of the new mirror Nikon say it's comparable to the D850, which you already own. The reviewers seem to be consider the D850 as the standard against which further Nikons will be measured (and in some respects, like banding, the new Z7 Nikon falls short). If you really need the advantage of a slightly lighter camera, then buy it. It weighs about 330g less than the D850, which comes to 11.64 ounces, or about three-quarters of a pound. Having used the D850 extensively, I don't find it especially cumbersome. For years, working with film, I used the Nikon F2, which weighs 840g (the D850 weighs 915g), so a D850 feels pretty much normal to me. It's really a matter of whether the slight gain in weight advantage makes that much of a difference to you.

Although some people use UV filters as standard, I've never been able to detect any significant difference between having a UV filter, and not having one, and I live at altitude (7200 feet), where the ultraviolet radiation is high. Maybe there's a marginal difference, and maybe you can demonstrate it in a lab, but practically speaking, I can't tell any difference. And then, if you're paying $1,000+ for a supremely well designed and engineered lens, why put a $20 piece of glass in front of it when you take pictures?

Some people use UV filters to protect the lens, you know, so that if you drop the lens, the filter cracks, but the lens doesn't. It seems to me that a lens hood would pretty much do the job of correcting the lens.

I've got a whole bag of filters from my film days. Frankly, since you can add filtration when you process the image, you don't need filters in the field. The exception would be the polarizing filter, which eliminates glare and darkens the sky at right angles to the sun. That can't be duplicated in Lightroom.

There is no guarantee that the company running the cloud will still be in business years down the road. In fact, the more years down the road, the less likely the company will still exist. It's best to keep your files on hard drives (more than one--not just the drive in your computer), which can be handed down to your heirs.

When I began doing regular darkroom work, the best print washers, capable of washing to archival standards, were made by an outfit called East Street Gallery. You can still buy their washers on e-bay. I was impressed that the washers had a lifetime guarantee. I'm still alive, but East Street Gallery is long gone.

Luckily, the washers still work just fine.

Good advice all the way around. Traditionally, a slightly long lens (90mm) is ideal for portraits, since its perspective befits the face--wide-angle lenses turn faces into eggs. Of course, very long lenses, up to 500mm, work well for wildlife photography, and wide-angle lenses, with perspective control, are pretty much necessary for architectural photography.

But what you need to do is figure out how you "see" things. Try walking around and taking pictures, using just one lens, and trying to frame every shot full-frame. If you find yourself generally backing up to get more into your picture, your lens is too long for you. If, on the other hand, you find yourself creeping in, then your lens is too short. This is really a very individual type thing. Eliot Porter, for instance, favored medium to slightly long lenses (on a 4 x 5). I find that a 35mm lens feels normal for me on a 35mm full-frame. When I'm traveling, I use a 24-105 zoom, but it's generally kept at around 35mm. On a 4x5, however, I find that a 24mm equivalent (90mm for a 4 x 5) feels normal. It's really a matter of how your eye sees things, and that's very individualized.

I have the old Lightroom and I'm resisting the "upgrade" for obvious reasons: I like to own a program, not rent it, and as a part-time photographer, I will from time to time go through a month without doing anything on Lightroom, which means I'll be paying although I'm not using the program. I also have a Nikon D850, which has files so large that the RAW files can't be uploaded onto a computer. You can only upload your backup JPEG files from the second card slot.

It is true, indeed, that Lightroom originally couldn't handle the Nikon D850 files, but they put out an update that can be downloaded from the Adobe sight, so that now, indeed, Lightroom--the old Lightroom--can handle the Nikon D850's huge RAW files.

Mirrorless cameras are now creating a lot of buzz, especially since Nikon has suddenly entered the field, but I don't see them displacing standard DSLR's. The main advantage to mirrorless cameras is that you can get a full-frame camera that's lighter than a comparable DSLR. Fine, but once you had a lens, it's not that much difference. For instance, the Sony Alpha AR7 III + Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom weigh 1549g. The Nikon D850 + Nikon 24-70mm zoom weigh 1815g. That's a difference of 266g, or about 9.4 ounces. Yes, the Sony is lighter, but 1549g isn't a pocket camera.

Mirrorless cameras and DSLR's are comparable. Neither one is better than the other. The choice is going to depend on what features you need. Some have talked about the possibility of blur from the mirror moving, but I've never had any problems, . . . and that includes years of taking pictures on film with old SLR's, Nikon F, Nikon F2, all with mirrors. One of the clear advantages of the mirrorless cameras is that they're lighter, except once you add a top quality lens, the difference between that camera and a DSLR with a comparable lens isn't all that great.

Think also in terms of what "mode" you might be using. For instance, Nikon has a mode called "Vivid" that punches up the colors (rather like old Ektachrome film). Sony's mirrorless cameras have a different color palette, which you might prefer, but which, to me, doesn't look as good as Nikon's "Vivid." Having said that, I'll add that you can punch up the colors in post-processing.

Also, since the mirrorless cameras have an electronic viewfinder rather than a pentaprism, they should use up the battery faster than a DSLR, although I've been told that the latest mirrorless Sonys have much improved battery life. Again, not that much of a problem: put an extra battery in your pocket.

If you want to work with film--and some people are doing that, because film b&w looks quite different from digital b&w--get yourself a second-hand Nikon F2. You'll have an enormous range of lens choices, and this will be well under $2,000.

I think the Nikon F2 was the best traditional 35mm film camera ever made. It doesn't have automatic focusing, it doesn't have automatic film forward of film rewind, it's not made out of plastic, its viewfinder shows 100% of the image. It only needs one pair of batteries (for the light meter). If you're a purist, you can get a second-hand Nikon F, which has no light meter (and there are many of us who, believe it or not, managed to do b&w photography just fine without a light meter).

I have a Nikon F and two Nikon F2s, the Nikon F dating back to 1972, one of the Nikon F2s dating to about 1980. I've had each of them repaired once (the newest F2 has never needed repairing). I've dragged them to Italy, throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, across America. They simply keep working. Very reliable.

You'll probably find yourself using your zoom at the 24mm end, and you'll have to deal with the fact that the cathedral interiors are dark. Also, the contrast between light coming in the windows and the darkness of the interior will give you a contrast range that's difficult too handle, if windows take up a lot of the picture frame. Remember that when you're composing images. You may have to learn HDR technology for some shots, but beware: unless you get special permission in advance (as a pro working on a project), you will not be allowed to use a tripod. Indeed, in some Cathedrals (Canterbury, Eli), you have to pay a fee to take pictures.

I took many cathedral pictures back in the old film days, and found myself constantly leaning against pillars and chairs while shooting at 1/15th of a second. About one out of three shots came out sharp enough. You'll need image stabilization, and probably a higher ISO if you want to shoot around f/5.6

Take the 24-120. The 85mm is perfect for portraits (wide angle lenses tend to turn faces into globes), but not so hot for scenic--you'd only be able to get details of buildings, not whole buildings. Another thing to do, when you get a chance, is to determine what your favorite focal length happens to be. We all see things differently. For a great many photographers, 50mm or 55mm is "normal," which is one of the reasons it's the lens dealers automatically pair with camera bodies. For me, however, 35mm looks normal, and 24 looks wide. Most of my 35mm work seems to be at 35mm--my 4x5 work, however, tends to be 90mm, which is equivalent to a 24mm on a 35mm full frame camera.

The 24-120, obviously, gives you focal lengths from wide angle to short telephoto.

After you get back from your trip, assuming you've used the zoom lens, review your images and see what focal lengths you used most often. If it turns out that 90% of your photographs are taken at 35mm, for instance, then next time, you can take a lighter (and cheaper) single focus-length 35mm lens.

As others have suggested, stick with Nikon. I have about eight Nikon lenses for my old Nikon F2 (I own three), which were simply among the best lenses made in that generation. Now, with a digital Nikon, I have four new lenses, again, among the best made, although the first kit lens I bought was no match for the later lenses. And by the way, all the old lenses actually work on the digital Nikons, although you have to switch to manual focusing and you have to set the aperture manually.

My guess is that you didn't use a fast enough shutter speed. Presumably, since owls will fly away when approached, you were using your zoom at the 600mm end. You need a shutter speed of one over the focal length of the lens, minimum, to get a sharp image, which means you should have used a shutter speed around 1/1000. But you didn't have enough light, so the trick is to increase your ISO, probably to 800, maybe even 1000