ilkka_nissila wrote:
For birds in flight and other fast-moving subjects, I would recommend shooting the 500 PF without TC, and crop if necessary. With the wider field of view of 500mm, it is easier to hold the subject in the viewfinder and you have more focus points, more cross-type points, and more AF area modes at your disposal than when using the TC. The AF is faster and more confident in picking up an out of focus subject when you don't use a TC.
One possibility is to try to use landscape elements or multiple birds (or prey) to frame the subject in such a way that the image works even if the main subject is small in the image. ...Show more →
Thank you that’s a great help , the 200-500 is not a bad lens,it spends most time on the D850 .According to FoCal mines sharpest at f5.6 , it is sharp in the centre but I can notice the little softening at the edges with the D850 . I agree focus is slow with this lens but it does a great job of tracking once it’s grabbed . The option of a TC if needed would have been really nice , a lot of the birds are small so I’m having to crop much more than I’d like if I can’t get close enough . I can’t stretch to a 500mm f4E so was looking at the 500mm f5.6 PF , second hand f4G or f4 sigma sport (mainly the last two if they work well with a x1.4 TC) arbitrage wrote:
I don't have my 200-500 anymore to do a direct comparison so sort of going off of memory here....
I think that the drive speed of the AF of the 200-500 may still be slower than the 500PF/1.4TC. However, my feeling is that the hit rate and consistency of tracking a BIF is better with the bare 200-500 than it is with the 500PF/1.4TC.
The 200-500 is a slower focusing lens but I found it to be very consistent and tracked really well. I just don't think you can cheat the focusing aperture and being at f/8 with the 500PF/1.4TC leads to more misses in a BIF burst and I've had a number of occasions where if it is too far out of focus it just won't drive to get onto a bird flying towards me.
That all said I have shot some BIF with the 500PF/1.4TC and I got keepers. I'm just not that confident in it like I am with my f/4 and f/5.6 lens(TC) combos. I'm sure you would have been able to get some shots of the peregrine with the 500PF/1.4TC combo.
The bare 500PF puts the 200-500 to shame in AF speed. Although consistency of keepers isn't all that much different once it is tracking.
Again, that is all off memory of the 200-500....Show more →
This looks very nice on my phone , will have to have a look on the iMac later after work . I love the D850 but sometimes finding the 200-500 a little short so need the heavy cropping , if the lens is sharp enough it obviously helps .
aboutthelight wrote:
This was cropped 78% so represents 22% of the original frame. The D850 and 500PF combination make shooting flight shots like a joke. Nothing hard at all, Just pick the most killer one and you are done. It is so easy to shoot with this lens that I find that I reach for it way more than my 600 f4.
aboutthelight wrote:
This was cropped 78% so represents 22% of the original frame. The D850 and 500PF combination make shooting flight shots like a joke. Nothing hard at all, Just pick the most killer one and you are done. It is so easy to shoot with this lens that I find that I reach for it way more than my 600 f4.
Used my PF for a Lacrosse game. Found it a bit too tight for the D500 so I moved it to the d4s. I shut off the VR. Have you tried the sport mode? I like to simple light weight . The last shot is posted form over 100 yards away with the turf mirage.
arbitrage wrote:
I don't have my 200-500 anymore to do a direct comparison so sort of going off of memory here....
I think that the drive speed of the AF of the 200-500 may still be slower than the 500PF/1.4TC. However, my feeling is that the hit rate and consistency of tracking a BIF is better with the bare 200-500 than it is with the 500PF/1.4TC.
The 200-500 is a slower focusing lens but I found it to be very consistent and tracked really well. I just don't think you can cheat the focusing aperture and being at f/8 with the 500PF/1.4TC leads to more misses in a BIF burst and I've had a number of occasions where if it is too far out of focus it just won't drive to get onto a bird flying towards me.
That all said I have shot some BIF with the 500PF/1.4TC and I got keepers. I'm just not that confident in it like I am with my f/4 and f/5.6 lens(TC) combos. I'm sure you would have been able to get some shots of the peregrine with the 500PF/1.4TC combo.
The bare 500PF puts the 200-500 to shame in AF speed. Although consistency of keepers isn't all that much different once it is tracking.
Again, that is all off memory of the 200-500....Show more →
Your memory is good: The 200-500 is not fast to acquire. However, once it acquires it keeps the bird in focus throughout the sequence. And I find that it is usually fast enough. Translation = I would love for it to “snap” into focus, but I am still quite satisfied with it. Above is based on using AUTO AF, which you recommended to me. And it is great!
I am sure I will buy the 500 5.6 some day. It is just too fast, light, compact and sharp.
For now, I am sticking with my 200-500.
I want my new driveway and siding before I want that lens.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind as early as tomorrow
Spent last weekend in Yellowstone. Got some great bighorn sheep shots I'll share soon. Found that the 500PF+1.4x-III was back focusing all weekend. Will have to AF tune it (or maybe service; I don't recall that combo back focusing previously a couple weeks ago).
Used it for a few innings at the home opener. The photo wells were full so I went high. Was pretty cool to have the reach in a handhold able package on D500 and D4s.
First Piping Plover sighting (for me) of the year. The beaches close today or tomorrow for these guys to nest so I was pretty exciting to see one foraging along the shoreline. I was even more surprised when he scurried towards me and let me take some close-ups
