That's quicker than expected, wasn't it? Nice start for the weekend!
Be sure to keep that foot good & tight. It can disengage inadvertently when carrying your camera by the foot.
Many, including myself have opted for the replacement foot from Hejnar. It's a little longer, has a really nice feel in your hand. and most importantly - it bolts to the lens collar.
I’ll probably end up getting the Hejnar foot and I appreciate the recommendation. I did get the lens sooner than expected. The store ended up getting an extra unexpected shipment. It seems like they are starting to get sent out in a little more quantity then before.
I ordered my 500 from B&H on September 30 last year. Finally arrived on July 26 ten months later. At one point I called and learned that my place in line was over 100 down the list so I forgot about it. I think Nikon could improve their financial position by prioritizing mfr resources to those items that are obviously going to sell like hot cakes. Same thing happened with the D850. I keep reading about declining profits and reduced market share but when they have a clear winner on their hands they habitually seem to be unable to produce enough product to meet demand. I almost went with a different product from a different mfr which I suspect lots of prospective buyers have done. At a time when the global camera market is shrinking dramatically due to ubiquitous iPhones, Nikon needs to be more attuned to better assessing what’s hot and getting it out the door. Sorry for the rant. Just frustrated.
A short hike yesterday in Yellowhouse Canyon on the headwaters of the Brazos river on the Llano Estacado near Lubbock, Tx. Armed with nothing but my D500 with a 500pf and a bottle of water, I spent more time shooting than I did hiking.
cohenfive wrote:
Looking forward to checking the lens out. Mine gets here Wednesday and I'm very curious how it will stack up against my 500 e fl.
Optically I expect you'll find the 500E to be superior in every way, but the differences are sufficiently small -- sometimes shockingly so -- that the convenience of the little "pocket rocket" will have you rationalizing whether to bring the 500E out at all.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Optically I expect you'll find the 500E to be superior in every way, but the differences are sufficiently small -- sometimes shockingly so -- that the convenience of the little "pocket rocket" will have you rationalizing whether to bring the 500E out at all.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the nervous, popcorn, f-22-like bokeh you get with the PF warrants hanging onto the f/4 version?
Gary Irwin wrote:
Optically I expect you'll find the 500E to be superior in every way, but the differences are sufficiently small -- sometimes shockingly so -- that the convenience of the little "pocket rocket" will have you rationalizing whether to bring the 500E out at all.
The reason I bought it (other than because I suffer a bad case of nas) is that there are times when the handling of the pf lens will make it easier to shoot with it. I'm thinking of good light conditions when I don't want to lug the big glass out, and when I wouldn't use a tc. I bring my 300pf with me on mtn bike rides, that is amazing to me to have a 'real' camera strapped to the front of my camelbak. Won't be able to do that with the 500pf, but if I can take it up on some hikes where I wouldn't lug the big lens, it will be worth the $$ for me. Even if the iq isn't quite the same and af speed is not quite the same (my expectations).
cohenfive wrote:
Looking forward to checking the lens out. Mine gets here Wednesday and I'm very curious how it will stack up against my 500 e fl.
I’m sure you will love the PF.
My 500 E FL has moved onto a new home after the 500PF left me rarely shooting it. My controlled tests showed virtually no IQ differences. I can handhold the PF at a stop lower SS to make up for the aperture difference. I also found the AF to be every bit as fast as the FL when no TCs are in use.
Main benefit of the FL is the use of TCs where 700mm can still be used for fast action. The PF is hit and miss at 700 for BIF. And if you can’t control your subject to background distance than the extra stop helps a little to improve bokeh.
Thanks! For f-mount, I use the Kenko Auto DG tube set with electrical contacts. I was using the single 36mm tube here...I think it shortened the MFD by a couple of feet or so. If you need to shoot closer you can stack them too. If you want to go crazy tack on the TC14EIII.
Colin F wrote:
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the nervous, popcorn, f-22-like bokeh you get with the PF warrants hanging onto the f/4 version?
(just teasing)
Indeed Colin, there are many reasons to hang onto the 500/4 (or in my case the 600/4), but notwithstanding the fact that the big gun is optically superior to the 500PF, I'm using the 500PF a lot more than I thought I would. If Nikon ever released a 600PF that will really get me thinking hard, but I'm kind of doubting we'll ever see one of those from Nikon.
cohenfive wrote:
The reason I bought it (other than because I suffer a bad case of nas) is that there are times when the handling of the pf lens will make it easier to shoot with it. I'm thinking of good light conditions when I don't want to lug the big glass out, and when I wouldn't use a tc. I bring my 300pf with me on mtn bike rides, that is amazing to me to have a 'real' camera strapped to the front of my camelbak. Won't be able to do that with the 500pf, but if I can take it up on some hikes where I wouldn't lug the big lens, it will be worth the $$ for me. Even if the iq isn't quite the same and af speed is not quite the same (my expectations). ...Show more →
As Geoff intimated I think you might be surprised how much you'll end up using the 500PF. It kinda grows on you and you'll be wanting to use it even in lower light situations where you know the 500E is the better choice, but the little 500PF is just so darned convenient. I'm starting to compensate for the f5.6 (f8 w/TC) by experimenting with higher ISO's, which for me is almost sacrilege.
I agree with both Gary and Geoff... the 500PF is so easy to use and allows us to be free of a tripod all day.
I am currently in Costa Rica and chose to leave my 200-400mm f/4 home. While the f/4 aperture would have been helpful at times, the mobility of the 500PF was way more important than one stop of light. I'll share some further thoughts when I get home, but until then, here is a pic from a day ago...
cheers
bruce
OwlsEyes wrote:
While the f/4 aperture would have been helpful at times, the mobility of the 500PF was way more important than one stop of light.
Yes, I have kept my 100-400 II (and 7DII) from my Canon days, and when I use it, I know that I am getting shots that I would have missed with the 500 f/4 due to the mobility and agility. For me though, it's not so much about the stop of light affecting ISO or shutter speed, it's about blowing out the background more/better with f/4.
