MedicineMan404 wrote:
Why does BestBuy keep leading me on?
'In Progress
We'll ship it by Mon, September 17.'
We all know that will never happen
Hang in there Robert....the 17th seems to be what most other stores are saying anyways....I don't expect mine anytime soon so I will live vicariously through you and others.....
So is this lens actually going to start shipping tomorrow, 9/13? I see it now says "sold out" on the Best Buy site. I have preorders from Amazon and B&H, so just wondering.
ELinder wrote:
Nobody knows for sure until we start to see credit cards being charged as shipments are being processed.
Erich
Cool. BTW, I'm in CLE, too
For those of you following this thread, how early did you order, and where did you order? I put my B&H order in around 4am on 8/23, but didn't order on Amazon until maybe a week later. For some reason, it wasn't listed on there right away.
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...
nuclearjock wrote:
I saw this article a couple days ago and I'm hoping these guys don't know what they're doing.
Yeah, what's with those samples ? They're horrible. I'm sure they're not indicative of what this lens is capable of. No way Nikon is going backwards in terms of IQ. The only question is; why would you not include some decent shots ?
Colin F wrote:
^^^ None of the sample images look very sharp. Just sayin'
They were talking about this on Nikon Rumors. Apparently, these are jpegs with zero sharpening. Also, some of those samples appear to have slight front focus. I agree they don't look very sharp, but apparently that's how this site tests. If you look at samples from other lenses that are known to be very sharp, they don't look good, either.
I will say, it better be sharper than those samples. My 200-500 looks much better than that.
The lenstip samples look terrible. However, their actual testing bodes much better for the 500 PF. Compared to the 300 PF it's sharper wide open, but when the 300 is stopped down to f/5.6 it's a dead heat, at least in the center.
Interesting review. Looking at the sample shots:
- most of the birds were photographed at ISO 200 with Shutter Speeds ranging from 1/200 to 1/640
- the clock, of all things, was photographed at ISO 200 1/2500s
My theory:
- birds were dead, clock was running REALLY fast
AvianScott wrote:
The lenstip samples look terrible. However, their actual testing bodes much better for the 500 PF. Compared to the 300 PF it's sharper wide open, but when the 300 is stopped down to f/5.6 it's a dead heat, at least in the center.
The 500 PF is slightly sharper towards the edges, which is somewhat in line with Nikon's MTF charts. According to the Lenstip reviewer, of course.
