Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              252       253       end
  

"Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread

  
 
Gary Irwin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


It will be interesting to see how Nikon markets this lens. They already have the better-than-it-should-be-for-the-price 200-500VR and the top-end 500E. In order to differentiate the 500/5.6 PF the only choice is to move the lens upscale but by how much? I canít see Nikon putting their very best technology (IQ, AF-S, VR, fluorite, florine, weather sealing etc.) into a lens that sells for half the cost of the 500E and I donít think this lens will sell well much above $5k, so what will Nikon compromise on?


Jun 16, 2018 at 06:54 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


My estimated weights would be 1.5kg for the 500 f/5.6 and 1.9-2kg for the 600 f/5.6. I agree with others the 600 should be the priority given we have 500 f/5.6 covered by the zoom. With the 600 prime still almost certain to be lighter than the 200-500 I doubt anyone will complain about size or weight. Price might be a different matter. Iíd be surprised if the 500 f/5.6 wasnít at least $3K and the 600 f/5.6 over $4K, but Iíd still buy the 600. Iíd sell my 300 f/2.8 to fund it.


Jun 16, 2018 at 07:09 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Gary Irwin wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Nikon markets this lens. They already have the better-than-it-should-be-for-the-price 200-500VR and the top-end 500E. In order to differentiate the 500/5.6 PF the only choice is to move the lens upscale but by how much? I canít see Nikon putting their very best technology (IQ, AF-S, VR, fluorite, florine, weather sealing etc.) into a lens that sells for half the cost of the 500E and I donít think this lens will sell well much above $5k, so what will Nikon compromise on?


Well what have they compromised on with the 200-500? It lacks the nano-coatings, itís not a magnesium alloy barrel, doesnít have the sealing, has smaller slower AF motor and is probably not as well corrected. The 300 f/4 alos is not built anywhere near as well as say the 300 f/2.8. Scale that up to the 500 f/5.6, it wonít focus as fast as the 500E, but it should be better than the zoom most likely, but being a PF lens might warrant the need for nano-coatings for contrast enhancement, but I suspect will be polycarbonate lens body. Hopefully doesnít have the VR issue of the 300 f/4 PF. Replace fluorite with SLD/ELD glass also to save cost. Also made in China, not Japan. Should still be a very good lens build wise but of course not up to 500/600E quality.



Jun 16, 2018 at 07:17 AM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


The 300 PF has similar build quality as the other Nikon high end "gold ring" primes. It is light because there are so few elements inside most of them being lightweight, not because of sloppy build.

A one-stop reduction in maximum aperture corresponds approximately to halving of the price (so my guess for the price of the 500/5.6 PF is 4500 to 5000Ä). Image quality should be as good as Nikon can make while still achieving the goal of extreme weight and size reduction using a PF element.

The 300 PF resolves about 2867 lpph in the center vs. 2143 for a selected "good copy" of 200-500 at 500mm (36MP sensor). At corners the 200-500 only gives 1138 lpph wide open at 500mm. I think we can expect the 500 PF to have similar wide open sharpness as the 300PF. So practically it ought to give subject detail similar to a 200-500 quality level 675mm lens in the center and probably the 500 will lose less sharpness in the outer areas of the frame than the zoom. I hardly think that the 200-500 "covers" 500mm f/5.6 considering the MTF results, reported copy variation, slow AF, no nano coating and not so great hand holdability (compared with tripod based results at least my 500mm hand held results were not as sharp nor composition as precisely controlled, but it could be just me). I don't know if hand holding results from the 500PF would be better or worse than the zoom, but at least hands aren't going to shake after long continuous hand held use.

In the 200-400mm part of the range of the 200-500, I found little to complain about but when doing an architectural shot with the 200-500 at 300mm and repeating with the 300 PF, the results were comparable in the center but the prime was clearly sharper towards the edges.

Conventional optics have some advantages (higher contrast) and I'm not saying the 500 PF is expected to be 500 FL quality. Perhaps half-way or 2/3 of the way between 200-500 at 500mm and 500FL would be realistic to expect. That's how I feel the 300 PF stands anyway; it is quite sharp but doesn't quite match the contrast or bokeh of the fast supetele primes. The light weight is the major motivator here. LoCA is very well corrected in the 300 PF and the close-focus performance is very food to excellent.

When shooting architectural details (orthodox church symbols on the domes) against the sky, I found LoCA with the 200-500 at 500mm but not with the 300 PF in similar situations. I do like the 200-500's bokeh better than the 300 PF's.



Jun 16, 2018 at 08:23 AM
sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Lance B wrote:
They should have released the 600 f5.6, not a 500 f5.6. The 600 f5.6 will be relatively light, I believe in the order of about 2kg which is very handholdable. We already have a 500 f5.6 in the 200-500 f5.6 and those that have one won't be "upgrading" to a 500 f5.6 at the cost it is likely to be, there is just no real point and you lose the flexibility of a zoom. A 500 f5.6 PF doesn't interest me, a 600 f5.6 PF does. It is pointless releasing a 500 f5.6 because Nikon believe it is cheaper
...Show more

But is it possible that there are quite a few out there that could benefit from a 500 5.6 lens that is about the same size as the 200-500, has "prime" lens IQ, full weather sealing , and pro grade AF ?
In other words, are there enough buyers in this focal length that have passed on the 200-500 because of the above shortcomings ? I'm not sure the buyer for this new 500 5.6 is the same buyer as the 200-500.
I'd be in for it surely.



Jun 16, 2018 at 09:00 AM
bs kite
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


The exciting, very sharp 300 PF (26.6 oz/755g) came in almost 50% lighter than the 300 AFS (50.8oz/1440g), and about 35% shorter (8.8in/222.5mm) vs 5.8in/147.5mm)!

Both the 500 PF and 600 PF sound exciting.

For me, I think it will eventually come down to AF speed.

In the meantime, I'll be happy with my 200-500.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/16/nikon-to-announce-a-new-nikkor-600mm-f-5-6-pf-lens-soon.aspx/





Jun 16, 2018 at 09:48 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Whilst a number of people would prefer a 600 PF, I agree with many others, as well as Nikon marketing, that there is probably more demand for a 500 PF.

Only time and sales will tell.



Jun 16, 2018 at 02:30 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


sum1sgrampa wrote:
But is it possible that there are quite a few out there that could benefit from a 500 5.6 lens that is about the same size as the 200-500, has "prime" lens IQ, full weather sealing , and pro grade AF ?
In other words, are there enough buyers in this focal length that have passed on the 200-500 because of the above shortcomings ? I'm not sure the buyer for this new 500 5.6 is the same buyer as the 200-500.
I'd be in for it surely.


I really don't think the market for a 500 f5.6 PF will be as great as the market for a 600 f5.6 PF. Yes, they may get some sales, but I really believe there is going to be more demand for a 600 f5.6 PF. My whole point is not whether they will get sales of a 500, they probably will, but just not as many as a 600 f5.6, which I believe would have demanded a much larger audience. The point is, these lenses are probably going to be used for birding mostly, and some general wildlife. When you are birding, you generally want as long as you can get and that means a 600 *at f5.6* is better than a 500 at f5.6, as I pointed out, you want as long as you can get at this relatively slow max aperture as you are stuck with it as you can't realistically use a TC.

We can get *close* to 500mm very easily in a number of ways with a number of lenses and TC combo's, say 400/420mm or even 500mm (200-500 say) and these lenses would serve as your "up to" 500mm lenses that you may keep in your bag for those shorter focal length requirements. And under 400mm is pretty useless for birding anyway. Also, there is just not as much of a difference between 400/420mm and 500mm to really warrant spending so much money on a lens that is only 80/100mm longer (or in the case of a 200-500 no longer). For instance, you may have an 80-400 as your shorter zoom, but 500 is not that much longer when all is said and done. To get to 400/420mm we can use an 80-400, or a 300 PF + 1.4x TC, or a 300 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC (especially if they make a new 300 f2.8E FL which will be lighter than the current 300 f2.8), a 200-500 (makes the 500 PF basically redundant) or any of the third party lenses and the third party superzooms from Tamron and Sigma.

If you have a 400/420mm lens in your bag, which can easily be achieved, then a 500mm lens over a 400/420mm lens is just not a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. 1.5x is like using a DX camera over an FX camera which makes a difference, whereas a 500 over a 400 is only 1.25x (and only 1.19x for a 420mm combo), marginal increase at best, basically not worth the big $ spend.

A case in point. I use my 400 f2.8 bare, with the 1.4 and 2x TC. Rarely do I ever opt for the 1.7x TC because it makes little/no difference over the 1.4x TC (it is 1.21x the 1.4 similar to what the 500 would be over a 400/420), I can crop slightly for a better result if required. I *see* a difference using the 400 + 1.4x TC on my D850 or I see a difference when using the D500 over the D850 but these are 1.4x/1.5x. Again, the 2x TC over the 1.4x TC is 1.42x and *that* makes a difference. I'm sorry, but 1.25x (1.19x) is not much of a difference.







Jun 17, 2018 at 06:49 AM
sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Lance B wrote:
I really don't think the market for a 500 f5.6 PF will be as great as the market for a 600 f5.6 PF. Yes, they may get some sales, but I really believe there is going to be more demand for a 600 f5.6 PF. My whole point is not whether they will get sales of a 500, they probably will, but just not as many as a 600 f5.6, which I believe would have demanded a much larger audience. The point is, these lenses are probably going to be used for birding mostly, and some general wildlife. When
...Show more

All very good points Lance and you're making perfect sense insofar as your claim that the 200-500 makes the 500 5.6 redundant. This is where we disagree. When making a buying decision on a long superzoom, for me it came down to the 200-500 or the Sigma Sport. I went with the Sigma S because of build quality, weather sealing, and the reported better AF abilities. The extra 100mm was nice but not a big deal. I still prefer my old 500 F/4 AF-I for birds when I don't have to carry it long distances. If the 500 5.6 mirrors the qualities I found important in the Sigma and also provides at least as good or possibly better IQ my 150-600 would be up for sale to go towards the new lens. The 200-500 is still not even in the conversation because it lacks those features I find important.



Jun 17, 2018 at 07:23 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Lance B wrote:
I really don't think the market for a 500 f5.6 PF will be as great as the market for a 600 f5.6 PF. Yes, they may get some sales, but I really believe there is going to be more demand for a 600 f5.6 PF. My whole point is not whether they will get sales of a 500, they probably will, but just not as many as a 600 f5.6, which I believe would have demanded a much larger audience. The point is, these lenses are probably going to be used for birding mostly, and some general wildlife. When
...Show more

All very good points Lance and well reasoned.
I'll play the Devil's advocate a little and say that you can flip that argument and say that a lot of us may have already achieved good ways to be at 500mm. That could be the 200-500 which many are happy with. That could be the 300PF/1.7TC which at least I am very happy with (and will surely be smaller and lighter than the 500/5.6). And then there are the more exotic ways like the 400/2.8+1.4 or 500/4. If someone already has 500 covered then 600 is only 1.2x more...if 1.2x makes not much of a difference for you than why spend $7K for a 600 f/5.6?

Now I'm not saying I totally agree with my argument above because I can see ways a 500/5.6 and a 600/5.6 could tempt me.
I'd say a 500/5.6 would tempt because I could keep AutoAF at 500mm and not lose it like I do with the 300PF/1.7x
I would presumably gain better AF speed over the 200-500 and I could use a 1.4TC on the 500/5.6 when I need
It would of course be lighter than a 400/2.8 or 500/4 but would give up the aperture (as is always the case)

For a 600/5.6 of course I do primarily birding, often fairly small birds, often very shy birds and 600 is always better than 500...well almost always.
But I would also have to weigh in these unknown factors at this time:
* what is the cost difference between the 500 and 600...is the 600 another $3K premium?
* what is the size/weight difference between the 500 and 600?
* how close is the weight and size of the 600 getting to my 500FL?

Anyways, I really don't know which of these lenses would tempt me more and I will need to know the cost, weight and size to make any sort of decision....I just think the 600 will be a lot more money and bigger than most are envisioning.

Really at this point, now owning the 500FL, I'm not sure if either of these lenses will interest me



Jun 17, 2018 at 08:02 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


You're not taking into account the differences in sharpness and resolution between a consumer zoom and a high end prime. For example an 80-400 gives you a soft 400mm (mine was unusable at f/5.6 and only with a great deal of luck resulted in almost sharp A4 prints in the best conditions when stopped down to f/8). I was glad to be rid of it though lost a lot of money in selling it. A 500/5,6 PF is expected to be far sharper than either 80-400 or 200-500 at their longest focal lengths and practically void of LoCA. So what if you can't use a TC - you can just crop thanks to the high level of optical correction of a prime lens. I could never undestand why people buy expensive lenses and then ruin them by attaching a TC.

Furthermore the 500/5.6 is probably going to be so light you can hike long distances on uneven terrain happily without breaking a sweat and thanks to the ease of moving you get opportunities to get close to animals which you would never get by huffing and puffing and making a lot of sounds carrying a heavy lens and tripod. So you can get tighter shots because the animal doesn't mind your presence with such a lightweight lens. The 300 PF is easily confused for a 24-70 and no one really realizes you have a long lens (in this case I'm talking about people subjects). I would expect similar reactions from wildlife to a PF supertele. Then there are people who want to climb mountains and photograph wildlife.

The 70-200 and 300 PF are the teles I typically carry (neither the 200-500 nor the 80-400 I put up with for longer than two months). A 500 PF would be perfect for extending my kit while retaining good to acceptable mobility.

I want to mention also people who photograph sports without access to special seats for photography. It is typical that if you are in a sports arena, the organizers may place limits to gear you are allowed to use. If I recall correctly the London Olympic stadium had a 30cm body + lens max combined length for spectators. The 25cm long 500 PF might just pass such a check. Even if there are no strict formal limitations, you are not allowed to block the view or the enjoyment of the spectators behind you. PF lenses are very helpful in such situations.

Another application is when photographing downhill skiing. You may have to hike quite steep slopes in snow to get to a shooting spot and even then you may need 500mm to get a close view of the athlete. A 500mm lens that weighs about the same as a 70-200/2.8 is of course much easier to get to the shooting location. A 200-500 is so stiff and difficult to zoom that it wouldn't be possible to follow a fast approaching athlete by zooming out, it happens way faster than that lens can be zoomed. A 180-400 would and does work though because of the internal zoom and click-out TC.

500/4 and 600/4 are about equally popular. I would not think a 600 PF to outsell the 500 PF by a wide margin.




Jun 17, 2018 at 08:39 AM
Dragonfire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Hello Canon, wake-up


Jun 17, 2018 at 08:44 AM
gkinard1952
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


This is the lens that will make me leave Canon once and for all, if it is sharp and has the build quality of the FL lenses. Exactly what I have been waiting for.



Jun 17, 2018 at 10:01 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Both Canon and Nikon 500 f4's far outsell the 600 f4's. And the reasons are perfectly obvious - greater cost, size, and weight. The very same reasons why very few wildlife photograhers use a 400 f2.8.

One certainly does not NEED a 600mm for wildlife; birds or otherwise. And one only has to view the Nature & Wildlife Forum regularly to see many excellent wildlife photographs, including ones of birds, that have been taken with lenses under 400mm.

The Canon 800 f5.6 wasn't exactly a great seller, was it? Longer is not always better.



Jun 17, 2018 at 10:43 AM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Imagemaster wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon 500 f4's far outsell the 600 f4's.


I don't know that this is true. Roland Vink's serial number database lists known/reported serial number ranges for the VR G and VR E versions and the 500/4 VR versions have a combined total of 10443 numbers and 600/4 VR versions 15120 if I calculated correctly. So the 600 is somewhat better selling than the 500, if these numbers are accurate. But there is no way of knowing really, unless Nikon reveal this information.


Longer is not always better.


That I agree wholeheartedly with.

I don't photograph birds often but have noticed in the (London) Natural History Museum's Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest that only a small percentage of the images were shot with 500mm or longer lenses. There are people who photograph birds with a fisheye or a 24-70 and get category-winning results from time to time.

When viewing images shot with various long primes I've noticed that there is a high incidence of "fogginess" or "cloudiness" in the air in 600mm and 800mm shots which I do not see in 300mm f/2.8 shots (looking at flickr based on focal length for example). I can only assume that the long focal length magnifies the deteriorating effect of air turbulence and particles and so the crispiest images would seem to come from shorter focal lengths. Of course there is something to be said for "getting the shot" as well but aesthetically I find shorter focal lengths (300mm to 500mm) more pleasing. It could be a matter of getting used to it as well. Out of focus areas from 800mm seem a bit too homogeneous to my taste.



Jun 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM
Dragonfire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Imagemaster wrote:
One certainly does not NEED a 600mm for wildlife; birds or otherwise. And one only has to view the Nature & Wildlife Forum regularly to see many excellent wildlife photographs, including ones of birds, that have been taken with lenses under 400mm.


I am always at 560mm and f8 on a 1.3 crop and a 600mm f5.6 on a D500 would make me happy, unless Canon released the 600DO f4.0 is.




Jun 17, 2018 at 11:51 AM
RoyC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


Imagemaster wrote:
The Canon 800 f5.6 wasn't exactly a great seller, was it? Longer is not always better.


Can not speak to numbers sold but not unusual to see one in FL shooting birds during winter and having one or two in the group shooting bears or wolves in YNP is far from unusual.



Jun 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


ilkka_nissila wrote:
You're not taking into account the differences in sharpness and resolution between a consumer zoom and a high end prime. For example an 80-400 gives you a soft 400mm (mine was unusable at f/5.6 and only with a great deal of luck resulted in almost sharp A4 prints in the best conditions when stopped down to f/8). I was glad to be rid of it though lost a lot of money in selling it. A 500/5,6 PF is expected to be far sharper than either 80-400 or 200-500 at their longest focal lengths and practically void of LoCA. So what
...Show more

Agree, and I would also expect the prime to be significantly better for closeups compared to a long zoom.

As to 5.6/500 or 5.6/600 I guess much of that depends on the price Nikon would charge, the size/weight savings and how optically excellent it is compared to other available options. Traditionally the price goes up a lot with longer focal length (at same aperture), and at some point the number of potential buyers is going to shrink.

---------------------------------------------

ilkka_nissila wrote:
I don't photograph birds often but have noticed in the (London) Natural History Museum's Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest that only a small percentage of the images were shot with 500mm or longer lenses. There are people who photograph birds with a fisheye or a 24-70 and get category-winning results from time to time.


For almost any photography subject you can take great pictures with almost any equipment. But I'm sure many bird species are an impossible subject in much of the world if you don't have a really long lens, and probably the bird photo opportunities would be quickly exhausted when you have nothing longer than 200mm or so.

ilkka_nissila wrote:
When viewing images shot with various long primes I've noticed that there is a high incidence of "fogginess" or "cloudiness" in the air in 600mm and 800mm shots which I do not see in 300mm f/2.8 shots (looking at flickr based on focal length for example). I can only assume that the long focal length magnifies the deteriorating effect of air turbulence and particles and so the crispiest images would seem to come from shorter focal lengths. Of course there is something to be said for "getting the shot" as well but aesthetically I find shorter focal lengths (300mm to
...Show more

Yes, where I live these longer focal lengths are almost impossible to use most of the year, except for subjects at short distance (and even then 300-400mm can already get you in trouble). Most of the time you can already see the turbulence at 400mm or so and contrast loss can be severe. But I'm in an area with lots of water everywhere, and probably some of us have much more dry/stable conditions where the long lenses can shine.



Jun 17, 2018 at 12:34 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


RoyC wrote:
Can not speak to numbers sold but not unusual to see one in FL shooting birds during winter and having one or two in the group shooting bears or wolves in YNP is far from unusual.


I said it wasnít a great seller, not unusual. Why do you think the 600 f4 II at only $1500 less and 200mm less outsells the 800mm?

Seems I recall a number of FMíers dumping their 800ís and buying 600 f4 IIís. Just like a mint used 800mm will likely only fetch less than $3,000 less than the new $13,000 price.

Relative to the number of 500ís and 600ís out there, some would say it is unusual to see an 800.



Jun 17, 2018 at 03:30 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread


I think 500/4 outsold 600/4 and 800/5.6 mainly because of size and weight though.
Granted it is the cheapest in the super tele primes but I think most people who could afford 500/4 would also be able to afford 600/4 if they really want it.
When I bought my 500/4e FL, I also seriously considered 600/4 but after trying to handhold one, I gave up on the idea very quickly. I think 500/4e FL is at about the limit for me as far as weight and size for travel.
Now the 600/5.6 PF should be smaller and lighter than 500/4 for sure so in this case, I could very well see myself adding 600/5.6 to my 500/4 (assuming that image quality is not significantly worse).
If 500/5.6PF is 2 kg and 600/5.6PF is 2.5-2.8 kg and $1000-1500 more (personally I think they will be lighter), I think many people may opt for 600/5.6 more than 500/5.6 unless budget is very tight.



Jun 17, 2018 at 05:56 PM
1       2              4              252       253       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              252       253       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.