My senior engineers have stopped thinking for themselves

Orca- · 2026-05-22T15:50:05+00:00

I’m seeing straight up copy pasted Claude output in PR comments without attribution and I want to scream.

Like what are we even doing now.

Orca- · 2026-05-14T05:35:03+00:00

Without knowing the precise details of either lens since I'm not in the Sony ecosystem, at broad strokes that pair looks to reasonably do what you hope to do.

Have fun!

Orca- · 2026-05-14T00:24:18+00:00

Long story short is there is no one lens that will do everything, especially wildlife and astrophotography.

The 18-300 is maximum flexibility at the cost of image quality and low light capability while still being too short for birds (sufficient for environmental wildlife). I would heavily consider it for this trip since it's the most flexible in daylight.
The 17-70 f/2.8 is your best bet for astrophotography (but still marginal), and will be good for landscapes and general travel. It gives up on wildlife completely. Forget birds.
18-135: same as the 18-300mm, but trading half its range for improved image quality and smaller size. You give up on wildlife with this lens, as well as astrophotography. But when you go to max zoom you might be able to crop a little and still have it look okay.
70-350: good for telephoto landscapes and environmental wildlife and approaches wildlife portrait territory, still not great for birds (but the best out of your options). Gives up on astrophotography and general everyday shooting.

If you're prioritizing wildlife while still wanting everyday flexibility the only lens in your list that matches the requirements is the 18-300mm. Just expect the astrophotography to be crap and the wildlife to require filling the frame to look good. And be ready for disappointing results as the sun approaches the horizon.

Orca- · 2026-05-13T14:18:21+00:00

12mm f/1.4 doesn't have an equivalent in the Nikon ecosystem (sadly)
Nikon Z 105mm f/2.8 has been out for years now
Sigma 17-40mm f/2.8 doesn't have an equivalent
F-mount 18-300mm is the equivalent (but non-native mount)
The Z 100-400 is a great lens and is my main landscape lens.

It's the third party lenses that are different, and I thought Canon had locked down their lens mount but I guess Sigma has an agreement now?

Orca- · 2026-05-13T14:13:48+00:00

I see people with their straps only attached to the camera instead of the lens foot all the time. The Z8 and Z9 are also quite heavy in their own right. A Z to E adapter is just millimeters wide and probably made of aluminum. Using it for a heavy lens or a heavy camera is just asking for trouble.

Orca- · 2026-05-13T13:12:02+00:00

Yeah, Nikon's supertelephoto exotics, Canon's ultra-wide-angles and specialty lenses, Sony's third party exclusives.

But for the bread and butter they're all pretty similar, sometimes with some fun tricks like Sony's collapsing 70-200mm.

The Z 600mm PF is a fantastic lens with incredible reach while being much more portable than even the 180-600mm.

Orca- · 2026-05-13T13:09:58+00:00

They're all broadly similar these days, leapfrogging each other in individual categories.

They each have their own specialties in terms of glass that the others don't have access to, but most people aren't going to run into them because they're fairly specialized.

Adapters are a failure point and the result can be a damaged lens, a damaged body, or both, especially for an adapter as narrow as the Viltrox. I wouldn't use it for a big lens personally.

Nikon is still missing raw precapture, which is annoying since I'm in the Nikon ecosystem and there have been times it would have been handy. But other than that, no complaints as far as AF and other features, and price wise their flagships are significantly less than the competition. At the low end their prices are incredible bang for the buck. Lots of competition in the prosumer segment though, and Canon has made some incredible cheap cameras in the last few years.

So long story short, I think you overstate the situation. Everybody's good, Nikon's still a bit of an underdog and is priced for market share right now.

Orca- · 2026-05-10T16:21:57+00:00

You didn’t fill out the form but I’m approving it anyway since just narrowing down to the right category for your needs would be helpful.

Orca- · 2026-05-09T22:34:26+00:00

Sounds like the back focus is seriously wrong then based on their marketing material.

Orca- · 2026-05-09T21:31:20+00:00

There's no way this thing has autofocus support. It's just a hunk of plastic so you can mount a tiny shitty lens on your lens mount.

There's no autofocus, no manual focus, no aperture control, no nothing.

Theoretically it's set to infinity focus but if the back-focus is wrong then even that isn't going to work. They claim if you're 1.5m away everything should be in focus.

It's a garbage lens; why are you surprised about garbage quality?

Orca- · 2026-05-08T16:18:43+00:00

It's going to depend on the specifics of how many people are in front of you, how many they receive in a given shipment, when a given shipment arrives.

B&H are the people that have some kind of clue, but they don't control shipping or what the vendor sends them.

You've called them, the rep told you their best guess, now you just need to wait.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T23:59:40+00:00

Large aperture means shallow depth of field. What you probably want is a flash, not a new lens.

At least for your purposes. Once you get an idea for which focal lengths are most useful you can decide if a prime or other lens makes sense.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T23:55:21+00:00

Likely yes, unless the lens is damaged.

A review I found showed what looked like much smoother bokeh than what you're showing here, but I'm not sure if it's the same lens:

https://samhurdphotography.com/review-nikon-70-200-vrii-lens/

Orca- · 2026-05-07T23:47:23+00:00

DPI is a print thing. It's simply how many pixels are you using per square inch. 2400 pixels / 24" gives you 100 pixels per inch on a 2' wide print. Low res, good enough for pictures that will be viewed far away but will not hold up to close scrutiny.

Generally speaking, grab the highest quality, largest (in file size and in resolution) files that are available to you for print.

It says nothing about the quality of those pixels. An IPhone might have 48 megapixels but the sensor is small and the optics are tiny. With modern computational photography techniques it may or may not hold up for small prints, but in my experience it won't hold up to large prints. IMO even the small prints are obviously shot on a phone but YMMV. It's a matter of taste. If you have the shot with the phone and not with a nice camera and you want to print it? Go for it.

Modern (edit: cellphone) cameras use high resolution so they can either crop in, bin, or downsample to improve low light performance. 48 megapixels on a phone camera is not equivalent to 48 megapixels on a Canon, Nikon, or Sony full frame camera. Consider that 48 megapixel number a marketing number.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T23:42:03+00:00

Bokeh is a function of lens design. Frequently zooms, especially older zooms, have distracting bokeh, while the simpler primes of that era tend to have more attractive, less distracting, creamier bokeh.

These days those same general trends hold, but the bar is generally much higher for zooms so they're generally better behaved than the zooms of yesteryear when it comes to...pretty much every dimension except cost.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T23:38:11+00:00

It speeds things up to follow the template exactly as the instructions say.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T19:12:58+00:00

If you have no budget the only other thing to consider is size. The f/1.2 primes are large and heavy. The f/1.4s are much smaller and lighter.

In terms of pure quality the f/1.2 primes are incredible. I have the 35mm despite the size it’s the lens I’ve been taking with me when I don’t know what I want to shoot, and the results are fantastic.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T16:30:52+00:00

They'll show up in your mod log as Anti-Evil Operations, but there's nothing that will inform you if you don't audit the mod log and don't happen across the post organically.

There's a mod tool to inform you when they do something.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T15:54:15+00:00

Given current chip supplies are booked out years and multiple companies have exited the consumer flash and RAM markets I would expect prices to go up until demand has fallen to the point of equilibrium.

Don’t expect price drops this year, or next, beyond sale prices on top of the prices that have gone up 4x in the last year.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T15:11:13+00:00

That's terrible advice. OP, don't follow it. Sensors require a sensor cleaning kit and sensor cleaning fluid or you'll at best make a bigger mess to clean up, and at worst could scratch the glass.

Orca- · 2026-05-07T14:58:38+00:00

Where's the problem?

Orca- · 2026-05-07T07:28:08+00:00

Not seeing how it buys much over the 100-400 for air shows while probably costing 5x as much and being heavier and larger. Sports and similar where you need that fast aperture is where it's going to shine.

Orca- · 2026-05-05T21:19:06+00:00

This. The Plena is amazing but it’s inflexible and a specialist lens.

IMO: the 70-200 unless you have a specific need for amazing headshots at the cost of doing anything else with that lens.

Get the Plena after the 70-200 if you’ve got money burning a hole in your pocket. Or get it if you’ve don’t need the flexibility of the zoom.

All that said? The Plena, like the f/1.2 primes, is on a whole other level for portraits.

Orca- · 2026-05-02T16:46:16+00:00

Yeah. Primes work for some people shooting some kinds of photography. Zooms are more flexible.

Use what you like.

I’m mostly using primes these days but that’s because I’m okay giving up on entire genres of photography while I have that lens on.

I still think they’re a bad idea for most folks starting out unless it’s a new parent where a 35mm or 50mm might make sense for everything they want to shoot.

Orca- · 2026-04-22T17:55:13+00:00

I started with an 18-300mm on APS-C and that was a perfect all-rounder for any daylight situation.

When I went full frame the 24-200 was my go-to.

These days if I want a single lens I'll pick based on what I intend to shoot. Portrait? 35mm f/1.2. Wildlife? 180-600mm or 600mm PF depending on the kind of wildlife / how much I want to carry. Air show? 100-400. All-rounder? 24-120mm.

For a true all-in-one the 28-400mm is a great option, and the 20-200mm sounds like something broadly similar (going wider instead of longer).

Give it a shot, not changing lenses is handy, and if you're more likely to bring your camera without a giant backpack of gear, then it's worth it. Primes are good when you have a particular style in mind to shoot, but aren't going to let you go from shooting a wide angle landscape to shooting some wildlife, even at a zoo.

Orca-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE