kbarrera wrote:
I believe I was supposed to go on one of the excursions with Geoff, Eric Gurwin and Morris to Jones Beach for Snowies.
a while back.
I couldn’t make it because of work. My recollection is that they were greeted with Tropical Force winds and they, along with their equipment were literally sand blasted. Heard it was brutal.
Another situation where this new lens (staying on topic) will benefit those of us who really do brave the elements to do what we do.
Al
That was awhile back for sure....Feb 2013?...I've lost track....the winds sandblasted me for 3 days and not a snowy in sight....I wonder why....Eric only lasted a couple hours that first morning...was a long way to fly and get skunked for my snowy but meeting and shooting with great FM members made me never regret that trip for a second. Too bad you didn't make it out.
In fact that may be why my 600II now for sale is missing some paint in areas not covered by my lens coat
kbarrera wrote:
I believe I was supposed to go on one of the excursions with Geoff, Eric Gurwin and Morris to Jones Beach for Snowies.
a while back.
I couldn’t make it because of work. My recollection is that they were greeted with Tropical Force winds and they, along with their equipment were literally sand blasted. Heard it was brutal.
Another situation where this new lens (staying on topic) will benefit those of us who really do brave the elements to do what we do.
Al
less than 5 minutes on Wrightsville Beach a few years ago, 35mph wind, $800 repair to remove every grain of sand.....big ouch and costly lesson, never take a zoom on the sand, you never know
arbitrage wrote:
In my experience my best images have come from having light weight gear that I can use to react quickly to fast changing situations. I value that quality in a lens like my 400DOII, 300PF and hopefully the 500PF much more than I value any IQ differences that exist between those lenses and my 600II and 500E....which really I find so minimal that it makes no difference to me. I buy 600II and 500E for the stop of light/stop of DOF, not for any resolution differences.
Therefore for my use the PF and DO lenses are solving my number one problem of having a high quality optic in a lightweight lens to travel, kayak and hike and to be more reactive to quickly changing situations which includes being able to handhold the lens to my eye for minutes on end...not seconds like the 600II.......Show more →
Well you certainly get amazing results from relatively short glass from what I've seen Geoff. In the past I've tried relying on lighter/short(er) glass (e.g. 300/2.8, 200-400, 80-400, 300PF, 200-500VR etc.) for birding but on balance I found that I lose more opportunities than I do using faster/longer glass. Carrying a heavy lens around like the 600E is certainly a pain at times but it's not all bad; it's relatively easy to shoot from a canoe where you can balance the lens on your knee for long periods and this year my wife and I bought all-terrain fat bikes that we ride through the various provincial parks -- I carry my D850+600E in a L511 Kinesis bag on my back...we can cover a lot of ground that way relatively painlessly -- and no tripod required!
That said, I would appreciate having something smaller/lighter with less mass for those faster BIF sessions when I need a wider FOV and less mass to move quickly...which of course is why I'm following the 500PF as closely as I am. If that doesn't work for me, at least we should expect to see a lot of cheap used 500E's for sale soon!
arbitrage wrote:
In my experience my best images have come from having light weight gear that I can use to react quickly to fast changing situations...
I think this is why the 500pf will prove popular for field sport photographers, providing the focus speed is adequate. And if the light is good, of course. It'll be a lot easier to swing a 500pf into action than a 400/2.8 on a monopod.
henry albert wrote:
I think this is why the 500pf will prove popular for field sport photographers, providing the focus speed is adequate. And if the light is good, of course. It'll be a lot easier to swing a 500pf into action than a 400/2.8 on a monopod.
I shoot sports and will not give up the images I get from my 400 2.8 for a 500 5.6.
I had the 500 E which is very light and still prefer the look I get from the 400 2.8.
The background blur you get from the 400 2.8 is second to none...
Creative Edge wrote:
I shoot sports and will not give up the images I get from my 400 2.8 for a 500 5.6.
I had the 500 E which is very light and still prefer the look I get from the 400 2.8.
The background blur you get from the 400 2.8 is second to none...
There is no right lens, there is no wrong lens...there is only the lens that allows us to do what we love and get results we are happy with. If one prefers the look of a 600 f4 but can not carry it it is worthless, but if one can do it effortlessly and it produces images that are not achievable with a 500 5.6 then why not. This is less about the value judgement of which is better....life not unlike some photography can be viewed in grays, not purely black and white, and so our decision to purchase one lens or another doesn't suggest we are ignorant of the virtues of one or the other but what suits our needs.
Eric
Thinking a little more about this, it would be neat to try the 500PF+D5 combo...if you could get close enough to the subject to fill the frame, you could crank up the ISO/SS to insane levels with a good hit rate. Might be kinda fun to try.
eyelaser wrote:
There is no right lens, there is no wrong lens...there is only the lens that allows us to do what we love and get results we are happy with. If one prefers the look of a 600 f4 but can not carry it it is worthless, but if one can do it effortlessly and it produces images that are not achievable with a 500 5.6 then why not. This is less about the value judgement of which is better....life not unlike some photography can be viewed in grays, not purely black and white, and so our decision to purchase one lens or another doesn't suggest we are ignorant of the virtues of one or the other but what suits our needs.
Eric...Show more →
This is very well said. I've seen great images from a variety of camera and lens combinations that go from consumer to top shelf professional. We all have to make choices that fit with our shooting style (and for many of us within our means) and learn what "works" for us.
eyelaser wrote:
There is no right lens, there is no wrong lens...there is only the lens that allows us to do what we love and get results we are happy with. If one prefers the look of a 600 f4 but can not carry it it is worthless, but if one can do it effortlessly and it produces images that are not achievable with a 500 5.6 then why not. This is less about the value judgement of which is better....life not unlike some photography can be viewed in grays, not purely black and white, and so our decision to purchase one lens or another doesn't suggest we are ignorant of the virtues of one or the other but what suits our needs.
Eric...Show more →
Imagemaster wrote:
Well Comparing apples to oranges.
DOH.... how about reading the whole response... DOH....
look at my response... it was in response as to someone mentioning how sports shooters would probably leave their 400 2.8 for the new lens..
this place is starting to be like dpreview... I have been a member here since 2013 and have never seen such petty going ons back and forth..
oh well...
Creative Edge wrote:
look at my response... it was in response as to someone mentioning how sports shooters would probably leave their 400 2.8 for the new lens..
.
Uh, no, that's not what my post said. What I said was that the 500pf might prove popular because it can allow quicker reactions than a 400/2.8. Methinks you've called the kettle black.
henry albert wrote:
Uh, no, that's not what my post said. What I said was that the 500pf might prove popular because it can allow quicker reactions than a 400/2.8. Methinks you've called the kettle black.
my mistake then,,, I apologize, completely misunderstood your post.
henry albert wrote:
Uh, no, that's not what my post said. What I said was that the 500pf might prove popular because it can allow quicker reactions than a 400/2.8. Methinks you've called the kettle black.
Yeah, you would think someone that has been a member since 2013 (or does he mean: Registered: Jun 14, 2003? ), would learn how to post the quotes to which they are replying.
And I am pretty sure the vast majority of sport shooters would not leave their 4002.8's for a 500 f5.6 PF.
Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, you would think someone that has been a member since 2013 (or does he mean: Registered: Jun 14, 2003? ), would learn how to post the quotes to which they are replying.
And I am pretty sure the vast majority of sport shooters would not leave their 4002.8's for a 500 f5.6 PF.
henry albert wrote:
Not a problem. The day when all sports shooters willingly abandon their 400s will the same day flying pigs go supersonic.
No doubt there are still a lot of 400/2.8s out their on the sidelines but the proliferation of the 200-400/4+1.4 Canon (and now I'm sure the 180-400/4+1.4 Nikon to follow) has been an interesting observation that I've made watching many major sporting events over the past 5 years. I suppose that it all depends on what sport and what level of lighting is available but I do wonder if ever improving high-ISO bodies will help f/4 and f/5.6 lenses become more practical to sports shooter.
I do see how the 400/2.8 DOF characteristics would be ideal for busy sideline/spectator bokeh in stadium situations. For that type of work the 400/2.8 will likely continue to rein supreme...but for many other sports where bokeh can be controlled, the slower lenses can become a very viable option.
arbitrage wrote:
No doubt there are still a lot of 400/2.8s out their on the sidelines but the proliferation of the 200-400/4+1.4 Canon (and now I'm sure the 180-400/4+1.4 Nikon to follow) has been an interesting observation that I've made watching many major sporting events over the past 5 years. I suppose that it all depends on what sport and what level of lighting is available but I do wonder if ever improving high-ISO bodies will help f/4 and f/5.6 lenses become more practical to sports shooter.
I do see how the 400/2.8 DOF characteristics would be ideal for busy sideline/spectator bokeh in stadium situations. For that type of work the 400/2.8 will likely continue to rein supreme...but for many other sports where bokeh can be controlled, the slower lenses can become a very viable option....Show more →
Anything that can help eliminate the field sports shooter's old friend the background chain link fence is a very good thing.
....Eric only lasted a couple hours that first morning...was a long way to fly and get skunked for my snowy but meeting and shooting with great FM members made me never regret that trip for a second. Too bad you didn't make it out.
Comparing apples to oranges.