After a solid week of shooting 7-8 hours per day w/ both my 1DX2+600III+1.4x, and D500PF, I'm completely smitten by the Nikon kit. It's not that the Canon big gun isn't exemplary, it's that the Nikon pocket rocket is so damn good. If there's a shot I can't get w/ the Nikon kit, chances are it's a bum shot anyways, and the Canon probably won't get it either. It really is at a point of "how much is good enough", and that for me is the Nikon stuffs. Of course, my back and shoulders are feeling a little more free w/ the lighter gear too, there is that.
I come here to post a few images to show what I got today and see the images here and it almost changes my mind about posting. Some great work here. Ive been trying my 500pf on my D850 and got some interesting shots.
Playing catch up with some photo edits. These are from the past few weeks. Have been using the 500PF now since late January as an option for my baseball work but just recently made it out for some wildlife. Just returned from the Masai Mara where I left the 400/2.8 behind and survived with the 300 and 500 PF lenses for length. Also, bull moose from near my home in Colorado.
This was fun to watch. Wifey spotted a pair of Crested Caracara and shortly after that, they received an escort off by some Scissortails. We were each shooting out our respective side of the vehicle, so she got some and I got some.
The following shots, wifey got out her side of the car. We were both shooting D500's.
I was curious how many of you need to rely a lot on a shorter zoom lens in conjunction with the 500 PF? I’ve mostly used zooms such as the 200-500 and I’m really wanting to purchase this lens, but can’t afford both at this point.
My long term plan would be to shoot the 500 on one body and an A7r iii and 100-400 on a second body for closer shots. Just trying to decide if I should stick with the zoom until I can add the prime or if I should go prime first. I have the 200-600 preordered for Sony but I’ll cancel if I decide to go the PF route. I shoot 90% handheld, mostly on short photo walks. I also enjoy kayak photography.
40Driggs wrote:
I was curious how many of you need to rely a lot on a shorter zoom lens in conjunction with the 500 PF? I’ve mostly used zooms such as the 200-500 and I’m really wanting to purchase this lens, but can’t afford both at this point.
My long term plan would be to shoot the 500 on one body and an A7r iii and 100-400 on a second body for closer shots. Just trying to decide if I should stick with the zoom until I can add the prime or if I should go prime first. I have the 200-600 preordered for Sony but I’ll cancel if I decide to go the PF route. I shoot 90% handheld, mostly on short photo walks. I also enjoy kayak photography. ...Show more →
I like to photograph larger organisms (mammals, cranes, herons, swans, and owls). Often I prefer to shoot wildlife landscapes that have an atmospheric quality to them, or portray the animal as an integrated part of their environment. These pictures get less likes, but they are the ones that appeal to me, can be printed large, and are my best sellers whenever I do galleries.
Because I do not get the same warm fuzzy feeling from photographing smaller birds (sparrows, warblers, vireos, tanager, etc...) I do this less. As a result, the 500mm PF is often more lens than I need. In fact, my most used lenses since purchasing the 500PF are my 200-400 vr1 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 vr1. So the answer to your question... I use/rely on my zooms a lot.
I have a bit of Sony envy now, as I wish the Nikon 200-500 was designed like the new Sony 200-600. I do not necessarily need the extra 100mm, but I sure wish the 200-500 was an internal zoom lens with a better AF motor. I'm not as concerned about ultimate optical quality as some are... though it is nice. I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of sharpness to have a reliable and "bullet" proof kit that I can carry in the field &/or stow on a plane.
For example... I just got back from a grizzly bear photo trip in which I had to make a critical decision about what I could take. The trip required float plane transport, and travel weight was limited. As a result, I left my 200-400 home and brought only the 70-200 and 500PF. My wife had a 70-200 and 200-500... guess who had more flexibility and better coverage?
In about two weeks I head off to Costa Rica for 10 days to do research with my students. I will, of course, bring some gear and do a bit of photography. I am once again faced with the same dilemma. Were I a Sony shooter (in the future), I could shoot and carry it all with 3 lenses (24-70, 70-200, 200-600) ... with compromises, but not enough that anyone but discerning pixel-peepers might see.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I like to photograph larger organisms (mammals, cranes, herons, swans, and owls). Often I prefer to shoot wildlife landscapes that have an atmospheric quality to them, or portray the animal as an integrated part of their environment. These pictures get less likes, but they are the ones that appeal to me, can be printed large, and are my best sellers whenever I do galleries.
Because I do not get the same warm fuzzy feeling from photographing smaller birds (sparrows, warblers, vireos, tanager, etc...) I do this less. As a result, the 500mm PF is often more lens than I need. In fact, my most used lenses since purchasing the 500PF are my 200-400 vr1 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 vr1. So the answer to your question... I use/rely on my zooms a lot.
I have a bit of Sony envy now, as I wish the Nikon 200-500 was designed like the new Sony 200-600. I do not necessarily need the extra 100mm, but I sure wish the 200-500 was an internal zoom lens with a better AF motor. I'm not as concerned about ultimate optical quality as some are... though it is nice. I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of sharpness to have a reliable and "bullet" proof kit that I can carry in the field &/or stow on a plane.
For example... I just got back from a grizzly bear photo trip in which I had to make a critical decision about what I could take. The trip required float plane transport, and travel weight was limited. As a result, I left my 200-400 home and brought only the 70-200 and 500PF. My wife had a 70-200 and 200-500... guess who had more flexibility and better coverage?
In about two weeks I head off to Costa Rica for 10 days to do research with my students. I will, of course, bring some gear and do a bit of photography. I am once again faced with the same dilemma. Were I a Sony shooter (in the future), I could shoot and carry it all with 3 lenses (24-70, 70-200, 200-600) ... with compromises, but not enough that anyone but discerning pixel-peepers might see.
Northern Parula. Somewhat common around here, but for some reason I have not had many opportunities for good shots with it. I am finding this one OK, but still looking to do better. Paruline à collier / Northern Parula by François Poitras, sur Flickr
