Nikonian24,7 wrote:
I personally opted for the Nikkor 400 f/.8 FL ED over the Nikkor 500 f/5.6 PF.
There is no question the 500 PF is "sharp" across the frame, but I have seldom seen anyone post a "beautiful" image with it.
Reason being, no bokeh, and the background always seems "harsh" to me ... in virtually every image.
I have seen beautiful backgrounds with many of the 300 PF (TC, no TC) images, but can't recall too many "beautiful" images with the 500 PF. Mostly just "in-focus" and "very sharp" wildlife shots ... with harsh backgrounds.
The FL ED lenses produce more beautiful colors, more subtle color graduations, and better background separation than the 500 PF ... which is why I personally went in that directeion.
If you are willing to use the weight of the 400FL then you get what you pay for (in $ and effort). You will be able to blow out backgrounds easier when faced with a messy situation. The 500PF, just like the 300PF/1.4 is a compromise in controlling DOF for the benefit of lightweight carry and mobility and agility to manage to capture more interesting shots versus swinging around the 400FL or god forbid using a tripod with it.
I know you like to use the 300PF/1.4TC...well that combo has worse DOF control than the 500PF being only 420mm at f/5.6....if you've seen a beautiful shot with that combo then the 500PF can get that even a bit easier.
But to say that all the images in this 120+ page thread have harsh backgrounds is ridiculous. Just scrolling back through a couple pages of images shows a number with perfectly OOF backgrounds. Going back through all the pages will show you 100s. There are lots of ways to get good backgrounds and nice OOF other than using a fast lens and there are 100s of shots in this thread showing that. Post me a 400FL shot that you think shows a "beautiful" image and I'm certain I can find a very similar one in this thread.
As far as more beautiful colours and tonal gradations I'm not convinced of that. I've done controlled tests between my 500 f/4 E FL and my 500PF and don't see anything different.
RzrShpWdOpnAPO wrote:
However, they would have been rendered better by your 500E than your 500PF.
.
Yes the extra stop would have improved the backgrounds in the 2nd and 3rd shots. I would say the 2nd shot would still have pretty horrible background even at f/4. It is just too busy of a scene that even f/2.8 might not have been enough (especially combined with losing the 100mm of focal length which would have counteracted some of the f/stop gain).
The problem is that if I had been using the 500E, I probably would have come home with none of those shots. The warbler was perching for at most 2 seconds per spot. Deep in the bush then popping out for a second and back in. I had the 500PF up to my eye for a good 1/2 hour to try and react to the times that it did pop up without too much garbage around it. With a 500E I wouldn't have been able to keep it up to my eye long enough to wait for the moment. If I'd used a monopod or tripod I would maybe have been able to get a few shots with the 500E but I was also turning around 360deg as the bird would fly to a bush behind me and I don't think I would have been able to swivel around on the foot wide path I was standing on to get on the bird again before it moved.
For those warblers today I think the 500PF or 300PF or a zoom like 200-500 would be the only worthwhile consideration. Using the big lenses (even my 400DOII) would have been disappointing.
The interesting thing is since getting the 500PF, I rarely use my 500E anymore. I will use it when I want to shoot at 700 or 850mm in a more setup type environment....where I can plant myself and wait for what comes. But in the field walking and birding and doing BIF, the 500E is just a hinderance and again, my controlled tests, don't show anything magical with the optics on the 500E vs the 500PF.
RzrShpWdOpnAPO wrote:
I encourage you to try the BlackRapid sling for your better lens ...
Based on experience, I can tell you deploying my 400 f/2.8 FL ED is as fast as deploying my 300 PF ...
I have tried tripods, hand-carrying, and the Cotton Carrier. Tripods are a pain. Hand-carrying is too much of a hassle. And the Cotton Carrier not designed for big glass.
The BlackRapid sling takes all the weight off, and it turns your "big, cumbersome" lens into a lightly-felt, always at-the-ready tool. I cannot recommend it highly enough, and you won't be able to understand until you use it.
All of the "advantages" of PF lenses become moot ... with the deployment of this strap.
I have that strap. It had a different name back when I bought it but it has the secondary strap to go under the armpit. I've used it to carry my 600 f/4 for an entire day and for sure it helps compared to just holding the lens by the foot. However, it doesn't solve the problem of being able to hold the lens up to one's eye for a long time to react to the scenario I described above.
RzrShpWdOpnAPO wrote:
I encourage you to try the BlackRapid sling for your better lens ...
Based on experience, I can tell you deploying my 400 f/2.8 FL ED is as fast as deploying my 300 PF ...
I have tried tripods, hand-carrying, and the Cotton Carrier. Tripods are a pain. Hand-carrying is too much of a hassle. And the Cotton Carrier not designed for big glass.
The BlackRapid sling takes all the weight off, and it turns your "big, cumbersome" lens into a lightly-felt, always at-the-ready tool. I cannot recommend it highly enough, and you won't be able to understand until you use it.
All of the "advantages" of PF lenses become moot ... with the deployment of this strap.
At RzrShpWdOpnAPO,
I would love to see some of that superior imagery that you are referring to. Since you have not posted an image here and do not have a link to a website, it is hard to know if you are more than a pixel peeper that just likes to own the best gear.
Both arbitrage and Lance B own some of Nikon's best glass (500 FLE for the former and 400mm f/2.8 FLE for the latter), yet they both tend to shoot more with the 500PF than their "better lens."
While I concede that a fast prime has better bokeh (heck my 200-400VR1 has better bokeh at 400mm f/4), the 500PF is much more than a compromise optic. It is light, portable, sharp, and quick to use. In fact, I'll probably leave my bigger glass home and rely on the 500PF for most of my summer travels that have me on and off planes. While I will miss the flexibility of my zoom lens, the 500PF will not disappoint when it comes to its optics.
RzrShpWdOpnAPO wrote:
Well, the 600 f/4 is bigger and heavier than the 500 f/4.
I have no problems elevating the 400 f/2.8 (comparable to 600 f/4), but I align my left elbow to my midriff, and brace accordingly.
Keeping the left elbow away from the midriff will cause rapid arm fatigue, whilst keeping the left elbow glued to the midriff center line will increase stability as well as long-term deployment.
Yes that is the ideal handholding technique for big lenses (or any lenses). I used the 600/4 from 2012-2018 and handheld it about 50% of the time. The 500 is a lot nicer to handhold of course being lighter and shorter lens.
If you haven't tried one yet, you should get your hands on the new Canon 600III or Canon 400III or Sony 400GM....it is astounding how the combination of weight savings and the rearward position of the centre of mass has made those lenses so much easier to handhold. They are now lighter than the 500E and feel even lighter than they should because of how the mass is shifted towards you. So far I've got to use the 600III and Sony 400....the 400 being a shorter lens is the nicest to handhold but the 600III is an unbelievable piece of engineering (to bad there isn't a worthy camera available for it)
122 pages later, and I wouldn't use this lens if you gave it to me. That clinical crispness, those nervous backgrounds ... why doesn't that make anyone else's eyes hurt?
Christian H wrote:
122 pages later, and I wouldn't use this lens if you gave it to me. That clinical crispness, those nervous backgrounds ... why doesn't that make anyone else's eyes hurt?
Mostly because I can get all those same effects with any lens including my 500/4....if you have a bunch of shitty branches 6 inches behind your beautiful warbler, it is going to look nervous no matter what. The 500/4 is every bit as crisp anyways so don't know how that is a fault of this lens. One stop won't save the nervous background in most shots...sometimes it will though and then it can be worth it.
Here is a solution if one doesn't like 500PF backgrounds....just shoot against grey sky and call your image "high-key" to pretend it isn't just a lousy image of a sharp bird against grey sky....
arbitrage wrote:
I know you like to use the 300PF/1.4TC...well that combo has worse DOF control than the 500PF being only 420mm at f/5.6....if you've seen a beautiful shot with that combo then the 500PF can get that even a bit easier.
Given the same distance to the subject, sure, the 500mm should isolate the subject better. However, one benefit of the 300PF/1.4TC combo is the minimum focusing distance. For a small subject (like a warbler), if you can get closer, then you end up with a very shallow depth of field that I think might tip the scales in favor of the 300PF/1.4TC. But, it's an edge case and I'm just nitpicking. I pretty much agree with everything you said.
arbitrage wrote:
But to say that all the images in this 120+ page thread have harsh backgrounds is ridiculous. Just scrolling back through a couple pages of images shows a number with perfectly OOF backgrounds. Going back through all the pages will show you 100s. There are lots of ways to get good backgrounds and nice OOF other than using a fast lens and there are 100s of shots in this thread showing that. Post me a 400FL shot that you think shows a "beautiful" image and I'm certain I can find a very similar one in this thread.
One of the people arguing about "those nervous backgrounds" uses the 200-500mm f/5.6 regularly. Multiple reviews show the 500mm PF has similar, if not slightly better, out of focus areas. One such review is Steve Perry's, if anyone wants a reference. Sure, it's not f/2.8 or f/4, but for a f/5.6 lens, it does a good job.
Christian H wrote:
122 pages later, and I wouldn't use this lens if you gave it to me. That clinical crispness, those nervous backgrounds ... why doesn't that make anyone else's eyes hurt?
I see it and have seen it in the images posted in this thread from the beginning, but I don't see it as a problem, nor does it hurt my eyes. The 500PF for sure has a more clinical sharpness with a different kind of color rendering and contrast compared to what I have seen from the Nikon and Canon traditional super telelenses.
I saw it in the very first images posted here, but I can appreciate the rendering and see it as having its own special qualities, apart from the OOF nervousness that used to haunt me in my Olympus 4/3 day.
If however you specifically desire the "deeper" colors and contrast of the conventional lenses, then I can see why you would not want to shoot with the 500PF. For me personally, it was one of the reasons to go totally in against the tide and get the Canon 400DOII with both converters, even though coming in clean after a switch away from Pentax. The color, contrast and overall rendering of the 400DOII appealed to me more, even though I could definitely appreciate the Nikon 500PF, and would have been better of in many ways if I had gone Nikon.
dan.h wrote:
Given the same distance to the subject, sure, the 500mm should isolate the subject better. However, one benefit of the 300PF/1.4TC combo is the minimum focusing distance. For a small subject (like a warbler), if you can get closer, then you end up with a very shallow depth of field that I think might tip the scales in favor of the 300PF/1.4TC. But, it's an edge case and I'm just nitpicking. I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I think getting within the 500PF MFD to a warbler that isn't dead would be very tricky. However, I was able to get within the 500PF's MFD a couple days ago to a newly fledged Anna's hummingbird that didn't have a care in the world how close I got to it. It was in my backyard perched in the cedar tree. I went back inside and grabbed the 300PF with 1.4TC. The only other issue was that then DOF was getting so narrow as I approached the 300PF's MFD that the shots didn't look all that great and probably needed to be stopped down to f/8 as otherwise I was just getting a very narrow band of DOF that almost didn't cover the entire eye.
PS: My Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G was smaller, and lighter, than my 400mm f/2.8E ... yet was imbalanced and front-heavy.
The 400mm FL ED, while larger, and heavier, is actually easier to hand-hold because of its BALANCE.
Also, the thing that makes the 400mm FL ED better than the rest is, it's sharpest WIDE-OPEN ... @ f/2.8 - f/4 ... all other lenses are sharpest @ f/5.6 to f/8.
If two lenses are both "4568" in their sharpness levels ... but one achieves this value @ f/4 ... and the other @ f/8 ... the f/8 lens is a common nothing ... while the f/4 lens will command the premium price.
The Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 FL ED is sharpest wide-open, f/2.8 to f/4, which makes it more valuable than the pretenders ...Show more →
Unless the photographer shoots off a tripod, shooting a lens all day means *carrying it all day*.
Regardless of balance, the 400 2.8 FL weighs over 8 pounds, while the 500 PF weighs 3.2 pounds.
I suspect that among all super telephotos, the 400 2.8 FL renders the sharpest images with the creamiest bokeh.
The 400 2.8 FL is so exciting, that I could *almost* convince myself that it could actually be my principle handheld supertelepho lens.
But in reality, I am not going to lug around this weight, while lifting it up and down to my face......all day long.
If I had the 500 PF *and* the 400 2.8 FL, eventually, the 400 2.8 would be staying home.
The only exception would be when I know I would be shooting off a tripod for most of that day. And if I can, I will always opt to free myself from a tripod.
All things considered; i.e. its weight, agility, AF speed and sharpness, it sure seems the 500 PF may be the ideal long lens for wildlife.
Christian H wrote:
122 pages later, and I wouldn't use this lens if you gave it to me. That clinical crispness, those nervous backgrounds ... why doesn't that make anyone else's eyes hurt?
"clinical crispness" "nervous backgrounds"
hmmm....this image seems a good example of those two qualities....
arbitrage wrote:
I think getting within the 500PF MFD to a warbler that isn't dead would be very tricky. However, I was able to get within the 500PF's MFD a couple days ago to a newly fledged Anna's hummingbird that didn't have a care in the world how close I got to it. It was in my backyard perched in the cedar tree. I went back inside and grabbed the 300PF with 1.4TC. The only other issue was that then DOF was getting so narrow as I approached the 300PF's MFD that the shots didn't look all that great and probably needed to be stopped down to f/8 as otherwise I was just getting a very narrow band of DOF that almost didn't cover the entire eye....Show more →
I think you meant the 300mm PF in the first sentence. It's actually been happening to me quite a bit lately. I actually have some very tight headshots of some of the recent migrating warblers. I found myself taking the TC off quite often as well. It really helped to blow out the background and clear some of the environmental noise when you can get the lens right into the brush with them. I recently posted some to the 300mm PF thread, and to flickr and instagram. I actually like the effect of not having the entire bird in focus.
henry albert wrote:
Or you can use a monopod. Small weight, large utility.
I don't disagree with you, and I value my monopod greatly. However, while not as encumbering as a tripod, the monopod is still more encumbering than handheld.
dan.h wrote:
I think you meant the 300mm PF in the first sentence. It's actually been happening to me quite a bit lately. I actually have some very tight headshots of some of the recent migrating warblers. I found myself taking the TC off quite often as well. It really helped to blow out the background and clear some of the environmental noise when you can get the lens right into the brush with them. I recently posted some to the 300mm PF thread, and to flickr and instagram. I actually like the effect of not having the entire bird in focus.
No I did mean the 500PF because around here I certainly can't get within the 500PF's MFD. If the warblers in your area allow you to get that close then the 300PF/1.4 or bare 300PF would be my choice. I still have my 300PF...can't bring myself to sell it even though I don't use it very often anymore.
)
