Blakehfreeman wrote:
This lens looks special. My only hesitation is buying more F mount glass. Surprised they didn’t release a Z mount version as well. Would be identical optics, just longer rear tube and different mount.
brian_sp wrote:
That's the problem, it is now a throw away society, soon as you buy something now, by the time you get it home it is obsolete and today's companies love that, look at the idiots that will stand in line for days because a new iPhone is coming out, Sony, how many bodies did they put out before they finally got it right, cars built to be disposable now, so give me the old reliable dinosaur, till a meteor wiped them out and that is why I keep my cameras in a meteor proof locker and my fm and fe bodies are still thriving ...Show more →
I agree with that, and while I worked for a long time in development/sales for this kind of equipment I'm slow to upgrade cameras and other gear. Usually it takes a long time before the practical benefits of new gear (often strongly exaggerated by marketing and fanboys) really outweigh the downside (bugs and unknown vulnerabilities, compatibility issues, having to relearn many things, finances etc.), if ever. I finally got a smartphone two years ago because my old mobile was too much trouble and far more expensive to keep using (the new one costs just a few euros per month); I still use it like a dumbphone 99% of the time ;-)
But I can also see the potential of these mirrorless cameras when the technology matures, which might take quite a few years because it requires many major advances (in battery power, processing power, heat dissipation, AF systems etc.). Increased computer assistance in the camera could allow me shots that are impossible now in my nature photography. It's good for pushing the edges of what is possible, but in general I doubt that ML technology will bring major advantages for photography. Until the technology has compelling benefits we can enjoy our DSLRs and existing lenses, and resist upgrading ;-)
More specific to the thread: though I'm slow to upgrade, the potential of new lenses like the 300PF and 500PF is enough for me to seriously consider jumping to Nikon (probably D500).
Your bad timing experience described above sounds familiar. Happens to me all the time and is part of the nature photography experience, nature is always full of surprises - including spending many hours and coming home without a decent shot, because there really wasn't anything to see. Gear is only a small part of the equation but I still hate it when I miss a shot due to obvious limitations of my gear (camera slow to wake up, AF way too slow, unable to quickly get the right settings, stupid exposure metering etc.).
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Just hoping when their A9 competitor is released, they also have a Z mount of this ready.
Oh sure that would be great, but we won't see a Z8/Z9 for at least 2 years. They'll release a D6 first and I wouldn't complain if they released a D550.
brian_sp wrote:
almost envious, it sure looks like a sweet set up, the way he is handling the whole thing, body, 500mm in one hand...damn...i think my 500mm VR just developed an uncontrollable nervous shiver
Hang on to your 500 f4 as besides the IQ et al, its TeleConverter Factor will always win out over the slower lens when you need the 1.4 reach... OTH the MTF of the new 500 f5.6PF is close to the 500 f4E
FWIW, I almost bought the 500 f4E beginning of this year, after years of yearning and agonizing (and the Sigma 500 Sport also convoluted decisions - esp. all Brad Hill's excellent testing )
But finally got a 400 f2.8E instead. Yes it is heavier but more versatile IME, and the IQ and AF with TC14 III (also TC17 II) is as impressive as all that the experienced reviewers say. But there are those ends of the day when the weight tolls!
I bought a 300 f4E PF only recently 2 years after the release of this remarkable optic [ie with a SR post VR niggles] . Should not have delayed. It has changed my peripatetic tactics with birds and all - including closeups of flowers and larger arthropods etc.
So yes...I too am hoping this new 500 PF will perform to the level all the signs suggest - ideal for walk & stalk etc in central Africa here. And what a fine pairing it makes in the PF Nikkor stable. But I stand to be corrected that the top Nikkor exotic telephotos [200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400 f2.6, 600 f4, 800 f5.6 alongside 500 f4] are exquisite optics. All set a very high bar, which these dinky PF primes cannot overtake, surely? But stand to be corrected
I'm considering selling my 500E after ordering the 500PF....not sure as the extra stop is really valuable but I also am very used to shooting at f/5.6 and even f/8 for a lot of my work.
My other thought is sell the 500E and 600II to fund the Sony 400/2.8 GM..........but then what will I mount on my new shiny Canon EOS R
chambeshi wrote:
Hang on to your 500 f4 as besides the IQ et al, its TeleConverter Factor will always win out over the slower lens when you need the 1.4 reach... OTH the MTF of the new 500 f5.6PF is close to the 500 f4E
FWIW, I almost bought the 500 f4E beginning of this year, after years of yearning and agonizing (and the Sigma 500 Sport also convoluted decisions - esp. all Brad Hill's excellent testing )
But finally got a 400 f2.8E instead. Yes it is heavier but more versatile IME, and the IQ and AF with TC14 III (also TC17 II) is as impressive as all that the experienced reviewers say. But there are those ends of the day when the weight tolls!
I bought a 300 f4E PF only recently 2 years after the release of this remarkable optic [ie with a SR post VR niggles] . Should not have delayed. It has changed my peripatetic tactics with birds and all - including closeups of flowers and larger arthropods etc.
So yes...I too am hoping this new 500 PF will perform to the level all the signs suggest - ideal for walk & stalk etc in central Africa here. And what a fine pairing it makes in the PF Nikkor stable. But I stand to be corrected that the top Nikkor exotic telephotos [200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400 f2.6, 600 f4, 800 f5.6 alongside 500 f4] are exquisite optics. All set a very high bar, which these dinky PF primes cannot overtake, surely? But stand to be corrected
Even comparing my 300PF and 500E the IQ is not very far apart and basically meaningless in the actual photos...the 500PF MTF as you point out is basically the same as 500E over most of the frame any bird photographer would use (ie I don't get to use corners all that often that aren't just creamy bokeh). The 500E is a killer lens and light enough for me to use handheld all day but there is nothing like having a super compact lens like my 300PF and what this 500PF will be for even more comfort and agility for BIF....also the ability to hold the camera to your eye and wait for action without a tripod is where the 300PF/500PF will shine versus a 500E which can't be held to the eye for very long.
chambeshi wrote:
But I stand to be corrected that the top Nikkor exotic telephotos [200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400 f2.6, 600 f4, 800 f5.6 alongside 500 f4] are exquisite optics. All set a very high bar, which these dinky PF primes cannot overtake, surely? But stand to be corrected
Well, that all depends on the user and his method of shooting, doesn't it? What the hell does it matter, if those exotic telephotos are not as easy or enjoyable to use as the dinky PF primes? Do you think anyone can hold and maneuver a 400 f2.8 as easily as a 400 f5.6? Sure, there are lots of times where the person with a 500 f4 on his gimbal head and tripod can get a better shot.
Then again, there are many times when I chuckle at the shots they can't get because they simply can't swing that gear around as quickly, or overhead, or 360 degrees, as I can with a handheld 300 PF plus 1.7x TC, and they miss the shot altogether.
I have seen plenty of excellent BIF shots taken with a Canon 400 f5.6 that are just as good or better than ones taken with a 400 f2.8, simply because those photographers could use the f5.6 lens easier.
Exquisite optics is hardly a factor if you miss the shot.
I just did an interesting (to me ;-p ) analysis of weight. Having just returned from Iceland where I was forced to remove items from my camera bag to meet weight restrictions, these trivial things have become more relevant.
Currently, my heaviest lens is the 200-400VR. The mass is 3275g. While the lens is handhold-able, the distribution of lens elements make it challenging to balance and hold for a prolonged period of time. I, thus, shoot this lens from a tripod or w/ a beanbag support.
The other lenses in my bag are the 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I rarely carry the 300 PF when I carry the 200-400VR because it does not fit in the bag once bodies are added.
Based on the specs of the 500PF,... the mass of the the 500PF + 300PF + 70-200 f4 + 16-35 f4 = 3745g
So by switching the 200-400 lens with the 500PF + 300PF, I will save 1060g (2.3lb) in the bag/on the back and gain the ability to handhold my optics when that is a priority... I think that this is pretty damn cool!
300PF 300PF 300PF 300PF, geesh, you guys have me thinking of a 300PF and my 500PF isn't even here! and I'm not even a Nikon guy
But for the rapidly aging snapshooters like me I can't see anything wrong with a 300+500 in the bag; not at these sizes and weights.
Yesterday I hefted the D500 in one hand and the a9 in the other, not as bad as I would have thought. Can't their be a civil union between the two ?
I see a9+100400GM for the short (relative I know) to middle (crop challenged a9) distances and a D500+500PF+1.4TCiii for the long distance hail Mary's.
That's my current operating theory and going to run with it.
p.s. Goofing off yesterday/first day with D500 and I didn't notice the mirror blackout....too many years with DSLRs.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm considering selling my 500E after ordering the 500PF....not sure as the extra stop is really valuable but I also am very used to shooting at f/5.6 and even f/8 for a lot of my work.
My other thought is sell the 500E and 600II to fund the Sony 400/2.8 GM..........but then what will I mount on my new shiny Canon EOS R
I would find it hard to give up shooting f/4 wide open. Those crazy smooth tonal transitions in OOF areas you get on FX are just so cool. (Though I look forward to the 500E's easier handholdability when my 500G bites the dust.)
right now i am at an age (and getting older) and point in time that i don't give a shit about F/4 versus the weight, it's a hobby for me, 4 v 5.6 doesn't mean as much to me if the weight of the f/4 is no fun to hump around, last time i traveled by air it was a major pain hauling this thing around on top the rest of the camera gear, not only the weight, i also like the smaller size.
almost tempted to go to my local camera store and off up an even trade, my VR for this but it is a small business. doesn't do trade ins
brian_sp wrote:
right now i am at an age (and getting older) and point in time that i don't give a shit about F/4 versus the weight, it's a hobby for me, 4 v 5.6 doesn't mean as much to me if the weight of the f/4 is no fun to hump around, last time i traveled by air it was a major pain hauling this thing around on top the rest of the camera gear, not only the weight, i also like the smaller size.
almost tempted to go to my local camera store and off up an even trade, my VR for this but it is a small business. doesn't do trade ins...Show more →
Same here, the last two trips I made, one to Colombia for three months and one to S.E. Asia I left all my gear at home.
This lens hopefully will let me enjoy the hobby again.
I've been in a holding pattern for the last couple of years waiting (hoping for something like this to appear).
Heading out next week to S.E. Asia again and hopefully can pickup the 500 PF there. fingers crossed.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
300PF 300PF 300PF 300PF, geesh, you guys have me thinking of a 300PF and my 500PF isn't even here! and I'm not even a Nikon guy
But for the rapidly aging snapshooters like me I can't see anything wrong with a 300+500 in the bag; not at these sizes and weights.
Yesterday I hefted the D500 in one hand and the a9 in the other, not as bad as I would have thought. Can't their be a civil union between the two ?
I see a9+100400GM for the short (relative I know) to middle (crop challenged a9) distances and a D500+500PF+1.4TCiii for the long distance hail Mary's.
That's my current operating theory and going to run with it.
p.s. Goofing off yesterday/first day with D500 and I didn't notice the mirror blackout....too many years with DSLRs....Show more →
I think the a9 with the 100-400 would pair perfectly with the 500 PF and the D500. If I had the funds I would run a similar setup since I really like the results of the 100-400.
40Driggs wrote:
I ordered my D500 and 200-500. Now all I need is a "loan" for 3600...
Absolutely nothing wrong with that combination.
We have made so many good wildlife pictures w/ the 200-500... That fact does not change by the introduction of a new lens!
