I don't recall a time, looking for the 500PF thread and having to look to the 2nd page to find it. What does this say.......
I went out to the lake yesterday AM to see the White Pelicans and arrived before sunrise in hopes of taking advantage of the early light.
To my surprise, I came across something unexpected - a single Ruddy Shelduck. These guys are native to India. Some spend time in Europe and South Africa in off seasons. This one was in Dallas, TX.!
I took my wife back to see him/her this morning and he seemed to be trying to blend in with the white geese.
Here's a few images from this chance encounter yesterday. "Bath & Preening followed by a Mosquito for snack.
1st shot was with Z50, 500PF + 1.4xTC. The rest were D500 w/ 500PF.
EyeSpyEagle wrote:
I don't recall a time, looking for the 500PF thread and having to look to the 2nd page to find it. What does this say.......
I want out to the lake yesterday AM to see the White Pelicans and arrived before sunrise in hopes of taking advantage of the early light.
To my surprise, I came across something unexpected - a single Ruddy Shelduck. These guys are native to India. Some spend time in Europe and South Africa in off seasons. This one was in Dallas, TX.!
I took my wife back to see him/her this morning and he seemed to be trying to blend in with the white geese.
Here's a few images from this chance encounter yesterday. "Bath & Preening followed by a Mosquito for snack.
1st shot was with Z50, 500PF + 1.4xTC. The rest were D500 w/ 500PF.
Please Nikon ! Release a 600 5.6 PF. I won't be able to afford that one either but maybe it will reduce the prices of the 500 to where I could pick one of those up used. My aging body needs this lens
In the interim while awaiting an answer, I found a good deal on a Retrospective 20 on the 'Bay. It just arrived a couple of minutes ago, and I can confirm that it fits the D850+500PF (vertically) almost perfectly! There's even room for another couple of regular-sized lenses, one on either side. I already have a Retrospective 10, and the extra 2 inches of depth make all the difference.
Chris,
Will the bag take 850+ 500PF with the battery grip. Thanks in advance.
Chris Court wrote:
In the interim while awaiting an answer, I found a good deal on a Retrospective 20 on the 'Bay. It just arrived a couple of minutes ago, and I can confirm that it fits the D850+500PF (vertically) almost perfectly! There's even room for another couple of regular-sized lenses, one on either side, as well. I already have a Retrospective 10, and the extra 2 inches of depth make all the difference.
Chris Court wrote:
In the interim while awaiting an answer, I found a good deal on a Retrospective 20 on the 'Bay. It just arrived a couple of minutes ago, and I can confirm that it fits the D850+500PF (vertically) almost perfectly!
That's right the 20 is deeper than my 7. I still would have guessed no since it's 11.5in deep and the lens and body is more like 13in but I guess the flexible bag can handle a little more.
skytracer wrote:
After reading the 194 pages of this topic, i'm still stuck between 500mm 5.6 PF or 500mm f4 FL
Yep, tough decision: more size, weight, aperture and and dollars for a teeny bit better IQ in a lens you might need a sherpa to help carry vs less size, weight, aperture and dollars for still excellent IQ that all fits in a medium-sized shoulder bag...
skytracer wrote:
After reading the 194 pages of this topic, i'm still stuck between 500mm 5.6 PF or 500mm f4 FL
I have both. I use the 500mm f/5.6 PF when the light is good and I want to go light and nimble. I use the 500mm f/4 FL either when the light isn't so good, or when I want to add the latest 1.4x teleconverter. Adding the 1.4x TC hardly affects the autofocus performance on the f/4 lens (on D5, D500, and D850 bodies). Adding the 1.4x TC to the f/5.6 lens does affect the autofocus performance (at a minimum, reducing the number of AF points that are active). Like everything in life, there are plusses and minuses of both lenses. If someone forced to me get rid of one of these two lenses, I would reluctantly get rid of the PF lens. I may be in the minority on that.
skytracer wrote:
After reading the 194 pages of this topic, i'm still stuck between 500mm 5.6 PF or 500mm f4 FL
I can imagine.
I got the 500PF and use it on the D500 and the Z7, and also have the 1.4TC.
I will no doubt be in a very small minority, but I could never see the 500PF as my definitive lens. I think it is a cracking lens and a tremendous achievement by Nikon, combining true 500mm and f5.6 in a ridiculously small and light package, but I still see it as my temporary birding lens until I have saved up for a non compromise birding lens, like the 500mm f4e fl, but possibly also the Sony or Canon 600mm f4.
I will always keep the 500PF though, for whenever I want to travel light.
IQ bare is as good as I could want on the D500 especially. It is when light is low or when the 1.4TC goes on, that distance performance takes too much of a hit.
I have to admit that I have not used the 500mm f4e fl, and people keep saying that it is only a teeny bit better than the 500PF, but I guess I will not be convinced of that until I have owned both and shot them side by side for some time. I try to keep in mind that everyone judges these lenses differently. On the Sony side, the 200-600mm owners tend to say that IQ is as good as the 600GM, but my own eyes see a different reality when going through the image threads. Unfortunately, the Nikon 500mm f4e fl seems to be not at all widely adopted.
The best would be if I could try both lenses in fact. It is true that i'm looking for the best image quality rather than a light lense but some pictures on this thread with the 500PF are extremly sharp... which make me hesitant
skytracer wrote:
The best would be if I could try both lenses in fact. It is true that i'm looking for the best image quality rather than a light lense but some pictures on this thread with the 500PF are extremly sharp... which make me hesitant
My .02 only -- seriously, if I were going to both "spend for and carry" the 500/4, I would get the 600/4, 1.4x and 1.7 or 2x, and use it on a big tripod with a Wimberley. With now a tripod-bound 600/4, 840/5.6 and 1020/6.3 or 1200/8, the 500 PF would be on my shoulder as my handheld bird (or wildlife, or person) in-flight lens*.
*Most of the time, "really good" optically speaking, is more than adequate for moving subjects... You *might* see the difference in a static subject with a side-by side comp. But I'd rather have the added reach (and extra stop for use with extenders) for a dedicated tripod lens as long as I'm already accepting the weight and cost... YMMV
If you want the best image quality in a Nikon 500mm lens, you should by the 500mm f/4 FLE. While some will use this handheld, you will find that your arms will tire, especially if you are waiting for a decisive moment. With respect to the latter, you should plan to use the 500 f/4 FLE with a tripod. If portability and the ability to react fast is your priority, then the 500 PF is the better choice.
Personally, I carry a 200-400 f/4 and 500PF in the field whenever I head out to shoot wildlife. The zoom is my "bread and butter" lens, I use it w/ a tripod or monopod, and it is paired with my Z6. When I am focal length limited, I shoot with the 500PF and D500.
After years (2+) of carrying this pair, I've decided that I could live without the PF, but would be lost without my zoom lens. If money were no object, I'd sell both and buy the 180-400 w/ built-in converter... an imperfect compromise, but one that fits my personal shooting habits.
Final point... you can't go wrong with either, it just is about your shooting style and intended target.
.... 
That's right the 20 is deeper than my 7. I still would have guessed no since it's 11.5in deep and the lens and body is more like 13in but I guess the flexible bag can handle a little more.
