As the saying goes, the best camera that you have is the one you have with you.
To me, the same thing applies to a lens like the 500 PF. It's a lens that you can almost always have with you on trips because of how light weight and portable it is. On top of that, the IQ is excellent.
It's 100% possible and I know photographers who have the 500 PF in their vehicle or pack at all times when they are out because it takes up so little room.
Elusivesouls wrote:
As the saying goes, the best camera that you have is the one you have with you.
To me, the same thing applies to a lens like the 500 PF. It's a lens that you can almost always have with you on trips because of how light weight and portable it is. On top of that, the IQ is excellent.
It's 100% possible and I know photographers who have the 500 PF in their vehicle or pack at all times when they are out because it takes up so little room.
Exactly.
Truthfully, I favor zooms over primes. I keep my 200-500 at 500 but I sometimes need to “pull back” if a loon inadvertently moves closer.
That said, I have not done any loon work this summer because of sickness. But I take short outings to the local Audubon. There is no gear to lug on these little outings. When I make my decisiion on which lens to pick up for the Audubon outins, it is always the 500PF.
If I recover and begin again to do my loon work,, I will return to using both the 500PF and the 200-500. Both will fit on the floor of the kayak I am going to buy.
Elusivesouls wrote:
Great shots, really like the beaver one!
Thank you very much.... It's 5:15 am, and I am heading out the door in ten minutes to drive and hike back to that location. On any given day, this quiet little pond is a cornucopia of photographic opportunities.
I was observing a family of Ospreys making themselves at home on the roof of a boat in the harbour until they were disturbed by the boat's owner. I saw that they flew off into the nearby dunes so went for a stroll to see where they had gone, and came upon this one. She/he wasn't best pleased to see me
"Don't try the 500PF... you just might change your mind; this coming from a guy w/ a 300PF, 500PF, 200-400VR, & 200-500VR"
Bruce.....Ironically a new friend of mine I met while shooting Terns had the 500 5.6. He was interested in my 600 E and of course I was interested in his lens....one word.......
Rimpson wrote:
"Don't try the 500PF... you just might change your mind; this coming from a guy w/ a 300PF, 500PF, 200-400VR, & 200-500VR"
Bruce.....Ironically a new friend of a mine I met while shooting Terns had the 500 5.6. He was interested in my 600 E and of course I was interested in his lens....one word.......
Impressive
Here are a couple images.
Ricky
Nicely done!
I think it's a lot of lens for the money. While it might seem that $3600 is a lot to spend on a lens, one stop of light improvement translates into 3 times the price. When you consider that the 500PF is essentially as sharp as the 500mm f/4, while maintaining such a small "footprint," it is an incredible deal in the world of high end optics.
With that said, it is not without its flaws...
1: it's not f/4 and doesn't have f/4 bokeh.
2: I don't like how it performs with any teleconverter... Some will use TC's w/ their mirrorless bodies, but that's not for me.
3. It's construction, while sound, is not up to the same level as the faster super-teles.
4. Some out of focus speculars produce an unpleasing bokeh (onion-like).... this may be the one negative that impacts my photos the most. When shooting low on the water, out of focus highlights do not produce the same beautiful blobs as a non-PF f/4 lens.
If you acknowledge the limitations, it is hard to find anything to not like about the 500PF.
Nicely done!
I think it's a lot of lens for the money. While it might seem that $3600 is a lot to spend on a lens, one stop of light improvement translates into 3 times the price. When you consider that the 500PF is essentially as sharp as the 500mm f/4, while maintaining such a small "footprint," it is an incredible deal in the world of high end optics.
With that said, it is not without its flaws...
1: it's not f/4 and doesn't have f/4 bokeh.
2: I don't like how it performs with any teleconverter... Some will use TC's w/ their mirrorless bodies, but that's not for me.
3. It's construction, while sound, is not up to the same level as the faster super-teles.
4. Some out of focus speculars produce an unpleasing bokeh (onion-like).... this may be the one negative that impacts my photos the most. When shooting low on the water, out of focus highlights do not produce the same beautiful blobs as a non-PF f/4 lens.
If you acknowledge the limitations, it is hard to find anything to not like about the 500PF.
regards,
bruce
Thanks for your detailed post Bruce. All points well taken. I was surprised that it was as sharp and responsive as my 600 E and can see why it is a popular lens. My ownership of the 300 PF is what will keep me from owning the 500 PF since my experience with the 1.4 TC on the 300 PF has been good. Looking forward to the Z9 and hopefully a crop counterpart like the D500/D5 combo.
