arbitrage wrote:
IMHO, I think that the quality/success of the resulting photographs from any of these Nikon 500mm lenses (200-500, 300PF/TC, 500PF, 500/4 etc) is much more down to the light, situation and photographer than it is to the lens qualities itself. Yes sometimes having the extra stop from a 500/4 can improve a background that is getting a little too close to the subject and it can get you that extra SS or lower ISO for a stop better quality BUT as far as sharpness/IQ goes I really don't find much in it between my 500FL and 300PF....the 200-500 just requires a little stopping down at 500mm and then even it is everything one needs as far as equipment goes. The real skill comes from waiting for the right subject in the good light with good control of the background distance and complexity....Show more →
Well said but I’m not so sure. I see things from my 500e that I don’t see from anything else. I do think the gap is closing and if you were to calculate a cost for IQ the 500e is even more expensive......
Christian H wrote:
Based on images shared on this forum so far, image quality is not a good reason to retire your f/4 500 or, indeed, your 200-500 in exchange for the PF. Old age and/or limited mobility and convenience are among the top reasons people have cited, which makes sense in an aging society of couch potatoes. Some folks have even said they don't really care about image quality (crispness, detail, bokeh, or however people define that for themselves.)
I know exactly what youre describing and crunchy or even too sharp describes it well
Christian H wrote:
Based on images shared on this forum so far, image quality is not a good reason to retire your f/4 500 or, indeed, your 200-500 in exchange for the PF. Old age and/or limited mobility and convenience are among the top reasons people have cited, which makes sense in an aging society of couch potatoes. Some folks have even said they don't really care about image quality (crispness, detail, bokeh, or however people define that for themselves.)
Very true. However, looking at your images of the (Coywolf), possibly ? https://www.livescience.com/39184-what-is-a-coywolf.html Your buck. and Arbitrage's ducks makes me want to go out and rob a bank in order to upgrade my old 500.
arbitrage wrote:
IMHO, I think that the quality/success of the resulting photographs from any of these Nikon 500mm lenses (200-500, 300PF/TC, 500PF, 500/4 etc) is much more down to the light, situation and photographer than it is to the lens qualities itself. Yes sometimes having the extra stop from a 500/4 can improve a background that is getting a little too close to the subject and it can get you that extra SS or lower ISO for a stop better quality BUT as far as sharpness/IQ goes I really don't find much in it between my 500FL and 300PF....the 200-500 just requires a little stopping down at 500mm and then even it is everything one needs as far as equipment goes. The real skill comes from waiting for the right subject in the good light with good control of the background distance and complexity....Show more →
Well chosen words spoken by someone who certainly would know. Your understanding of this concept is evident in the quality of your work.
Makes me think of something I've been trying to figure out concerning my yearly trips to Conowingo to photograph fishing eagles. I always shoot from a tripod and I'm able to set up only a short walk from my vehicle so I carry both my 500 f4 and my Sigma 150-600 S. I'm always there before sunrise and I stay till sunset. I start out the morning with the 500 f4 in the low light and end with the 500 f4 in the diminishing light at sunset. If it brightens up during the day I'll switch to the 150-600 for the extra reach and quicker AF (we're talking AF-I technology here).
When I go back and look at my images after editing, the majority of my keepers come from the 500 f4.
So, is the old AF-I a "better" lens than the newer Sigma in terms of resolving detail at a distance ? Is it acquiring and holding focus better ? Is it sharper ? Or is it simply the images that I'm drawn to in the editing process are just more pleasing because they're shot in softer, more subdued light ?
Very true. However, looking at your images of the (Coywolf), possibly ? https://www.livescience.com/39184-what-is-a-coywolf.html Your buck. and Arbitrage's ducks makes me want to go out and rob a bank in order to upgrade my old 500.
Eastern Coyotes are "coywolves" insofar as their ancestors hybridized with Gray Wolves. They're big (for coyotes) but smaller than Gray Wolves - though matters may be a little more fluid in areas like Algonquin where you also have a population of "true" wolves and smaller and bigger animals keep interbreeding. The Valley Forge male is big for a coyote, though - nearly as tall as a yearling whitetail. If you saw him in Algonquin and were told it was a wolf you might not necessarily question the ID. He certainly moves like one.
As for upgrading the lens, VR is very helpful in low light. But I don't use tripods and do much of my shooting handheld or (in low light) from a monopod.
Eastern Coyotes are "coywolves" insofar as their ancestors hybridized with Gray Wolves. They're big (for coyotes) but smaller than Gray Wolves - though matters may be a little more fluid in areas like Algonquin where you also have a population of "true" wolves and smaller and bigger animals keep interbreeding. The Valley Forge male is big for a coyote, though - nearly as tall as a yearling whitetail. If you saw him in Algonquin and were told it was a wolf you might not necessarily question the ID. He certainly moves like one.
As for upgrading the lens, VR is very helpful in low light. But I don't use tripods and do much of my shooting handheld or (in low light) from a monopod. ...Show more →
If you don't mind me picking your brain; And this is probably a tough question to ask you because it goes contrary to the way you shoot, but your work shows you have a very clear understanding of this whole process; If you DID shoot primarily from a tripod, would you be just as happy with a pre-VR model of the 500 f4 as you are with your VR version ?
Not a trick question, BTW I've been going back and forth and somewhere down the line I'm going to want to upgrade the AF-I, I think. If money was no object, I'd obviously just go for the newest E model. However, money is a huge object and I'm just not sure if it makes any sense to spend the extra $$ upgrading to an AF-S model.
If you don't mind me picking your brain; And this is probably a tough question to ask you because it goes contrary to the way you shoot, but your work shows you have a very clear understanding of this whole process; If you DID shoot primarily from a tripod, would you be just as happy with a pre-VR model of the 500 f4 as you are with your VR version ?
Not a trick question, BTW I've been going back and forth and somewhere down the line I'm going to want to upgrade the AF-I, I think. If money was no object, I'd obviously just go for the newest E model. However, money is a huge object and I'm just not sure if it makes any sense to spend the extra $$ upgrading to an AF-S model.
I can't answer that very well. VR stabilizes the viewfinder image and whatever slight tremors my body produces. At this focal length VR easily buys me an f-stop or two, which in practice means I can shoot at ISO 1600 instead of 3200 or 6400. I couldn't reliably handhold the 500 at 1/100 without VR. I imagine VR would help with mirror slap and other sources of camera shake you might experience with a tripod - especially while tracking moving subjects. But I've never used one and can't speak from experience. Best rent a f/4 G and see whether it makes a differences in your work, I guess.
I'm not going to say it over there. But I guess it's okay to say it here. I've been pretty much underwhelmed with what I've been seeing posted on the 500 PF thread. Especially with the TC's. And even more so when you compare them to what's been posted above from the E.
The good news is the prices for f4's are steadily declining on the used market. Keeping a watchful eye on how low they go before replacing my aging AF-I.
Some excellent quality shots on here guys . TC's work well on both my 300mm PF and f2.8 for short distances but no way I'd get this quality for longer distances . I like the 200-500 but would love a big prime , that f4 would come in handy . I was looking at a 600mm but it would be a little too big and heavy , looking at some of these shots the 500mm works well with the TC so I better get saving
multibit wrote:
Some excellent quality shots on here guys . TC's work well on both my 300mm PF and f2.8 for short distances but no way I'd get this quality for longer distances . I like the 200-500 but would love a big prime , that f4 would come in handy . I was looking at a 600mm but it would be a little too big and heavy , looking at some of these shots the 500mm works well with the TC so I better get saving
Yep it makes a very portable (the E version) 700mm f/5.6, a poor mans 800mm f/5.6.
Just to share my choice of the 500mm F/4 E FL VR, it was F/4 capability and weight.
I thought about the 600mm a while back but it was just a bit too heavy. I have a large tripod with a Wimberley. I can actually hand hold it though and with the lens strap it is easy to walk around with. It tucks under my arm nicely.
I also have the ThinkTank Glass Limo which allows it to fit in with the bag with either the gripped or non-gripped FX cameras. Hood has to be reversed though to place it in the bag. The little extra bag on the back holds my TC 1.4x III and a few other accessories.
I've been going back and forth and somewhere down the line I'm going to want to upgrade the AF-I, I think. If money was no object, I'd obviously just go for the newest E model. However, money is a huge object and I'm just not sure if it makes any sense to spend the extra $$ upgrading to an AF-S model. 
