Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saudistu" data-source="post: 188949" data-attributes="member: 14580"><p>I don't actually do Airshows. I take pictures of Civil Aircraft, usually approach shots or on the ground. I have AF-C with Focus priority and my shutter speed I try to keep at 1/800 as the slowest speed. I also try to keep the ISO at 100 if possible. This is all OK on nice days and I can usually end up with 1/1000 F9 ISO 100. The 80-400 would be the perfect lens, but it is too pricey at the moment. I have had a play around with the calibration settings with this lens and it doesn't seem to matter which settings I apply from all the ranges between +20 and -20 within the camera, the outcome is the same, pictures are pretty soft anywhere past around 120mm. I know it's not the body as the 18-105 is really sharp, even at 105mm. I guess you get what you pay for. The Tamron and the Nikon 70-300 are both given much better reviews than the 55-300. I will see if I can field test one and go from there.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Saudistu, post: 188949, member: 14580"] I don't actually do Airshows. I take pictures of Civil Aircraft, usually approach shots or on the ground. I have AF-C with Focus priority and my shutter speed I try to keep at 1/800 as the slowest speed. I also try to keep the ISO at 100 if possible. This is all OK on nice days and I can usually end up with 1/1000 F9 ISO 100. The 80-400 would be the perfect lens, but it is too pricey at the moment. I have had a play around with the calibration settings with this lens and it doesn't seem to matter which settings I apply from all the ranges between +20 and -20 within the camera, the outcome is the same, pictures are pretty soft anywhere past around 120mm. I know it's not the body as the 18-105 is really sharp, even at 105mm. I guess you get what you pay for. The Tamron and the Nikon 70-300 are both given much better reviews than the 55-300. I will see if I can field test one and go from there. [/QUOTE]

Verification