apertur3 wrote:
I am really sad to say this, but I think my lens will be going back. I did some test shots in the yard, went for a quick hike, and just did some indoor shots (all hand held) at speeds around 1/100. Unfortunately, I'm almost the exact same issue I saw with the 300PF. In each burst of shots, there are a few sharp ones, but many more blurry ones. I'm posting over in DPR if anyone is interested.
I don't get it. Why is VR so poor on these PF lenses? I did some side by side comparisons with my 200-500, and it nailed almost every shot. I'd say like a 90% keeper rate. This 500PF is more like 1 in 4 keepers at 1/80, 1/100, 1/125, etc.
Of course, I'm not only going to shoot it at slow shutter speeds, but why should I not be able to when needed? If I want to shoot at 1/100, I expect VR to work on a $3600 lens. ...Show more →
It may be a limitation of this type of lens, maybe also because they try to keep the PF elements as small as possible (which might be related to the size/displacement of the VR elements).
I don't get the obsession with 1/100s shutter speeds unless this is representative of the light levels you usually work with. For me (like for others posting on DPR) the primary question would be at what shutter speeds I still can get a high enough percentage of keepers (like 80%). My guess is that as soon as you get above 1/200s it will perform about as well as the 200-500 in practice (like the tests from "lokatz" on DPR show). And if light levels are really low one might use shutter speed like 1/50s. If low light is the norm and you are constantly fighting camera shake, then probably an extra-light lens isn't a good idea anyway.
Results vary more depending on the person and body than with other lenses; that's a problem but also a pointer for potential improvement. Possibly there are other factors like magnification ratio (close-up use). My Canon 55-250IS lens has decent IS but it is almost useless in the 1:5 to 1:3 range; the IS of my (much bigger and heavier) 100-400II is still great for closeups, but it has other closeup issues ...
Anybody remember lenses before stabilization? before AF? With my old shaky arms no amount of VR is going to help at 1/100. I'll just suffer the higher ISOs and be thankful I can still walk out the door.
Don't buy a lens foot for the 70-200E!
I wish I waited for Kirk/RRS to introduce a matched tripod foot...
For those who purchased and received a foot for the 70-200E with the intention of using it on their 500mm PF... send it back! While the pieces fit together, the foot does not lock down and has some wiggle to it.
Regarding the PF... thus far, my only critique is the quality of the tripod foot and the mechanism in which it connects to the lens. The foot and the removal lock feels cheap to me and is probably a weak link. While applaud the attempt to maintain a low profile and low weight, I think the engineers could have used a metal knob and more robust parts (like on their 70-200mm f/2.8 models). I will be replacing the foot as soon as kirk or RRS has one for sale.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Lenscoat now has the Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF listed.
I have a 'coat' for the 300 PF and think the 500 PF would look
good similarly clad.
Just got some new “ Realtree Max” fabric in. Can’t wait to actually get my lens so I can make a new cover and get it out in the field.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Don't buy a lens foot for the 70-200E!
I wish I waited for Kirk/RRS to introduce a matched tripod foot...
For those who purchased and received a foot for the 70-200E with the intention of using it on their 500mm PF... send it back! While the pieces fit together, the foot does not lock down and has some wiggle to it.
Regarding the PF... thus far, my only critique is the quality of the tripod foot and the mechanism in which it connects to the lens. The foot and the removal lock feels cheap to me and is probably a weak link. While applaud the attempt to maintain a low profile and low weight, I think the engineers could have used a metal knob and more robust parts (like on their 70-200mm f/2.8 models). I will be replacing the foot as soon as kirk or RRS has one for sale.
That is definitely some good intel. I was going to order that foot from Kirk. Guess I’ll wait until I have actually have a lens to put it on.
“ hurry up B&H “
OwlsEyes wrote:
Don't buy a lens foot for the 70-200E!
I wish I waited for Kirk/RRS to introduce a matched tripod foot...
For those who purchased and received a foot for the 70-200E with the intention of using it on their 500mm PF... send it back! While the pieces fit together, the foot does not lock down and has some wiggle to it.
Regarding the PF... thus far, my only critique is the quality of the tripod foot and the mechanism in which it connects to the lens. The foot and the removal lock feels cheap to me and is probably a weak link. While applaud the attempt to maintain a low profile and low weight, I think the engineers could have used a metal knob and more robust parts (like on their 70-200mm f/2.8 models). I will be replacing the foot as soon as kirk or RRS has one for sale.
Agree about the foot. It's too small to hold comfortably (if used as a carrying handle). My only other complaint is the VR, which appears not to work at a specific range of shutter speeds around 1/100. I guess technically, it "works", but the hit rate is very poor. Even at 1/200, I wasn't impressed.
technic wrote:
It may be a limitation of this type of lens, maybe also because they try to keep the PF elements as small as possible (which might be related to the size/displacement of the VR elements).
I don't get the obsession with 1/100s shutter speeds unless this is representative of the light levels you usually work with. For me (like for others posting on DPR) the primary question would be at what shutter speeds I still can get a high enough percentage of keepers (like 80%). My guess is that as soon as you get above 1/200s it will perform about as well as the 200-500 in practice (like the tests from "lokatz" on DPR show). And if light levels are really low one might use shutter speed like 1/50s. If low light is the norm and you are constantly fighting camera shake, then probably an extra-light lens isn't a good idea anyway.
Results vary more depending on the person and body than with other lenses; that's a problem but also a pointer for potential improvement. Possibly there are other factors like magnification ratio (close-up use). My Canon 55-250IS lens has decent IS but it is almost useless in the 1:5 to 1:3 range; the IS of my (much bigger and heavier) 100-400II is still great for closeups, but it has other closeup issues ......Show more →
Yes, light levels are my problem. For example, I was in the woods on a short hike yesterday around 6pm. In the shade and under tree cover, I was at 1/80 and ISO 12800. The other day, I was around the same speed and at ISO 5000. This is still doable, but if I have to go tp 1/200, 1/500, etc. It's not. My 200-500 handles this like a charm. So yeah, I kind of expect a $3600 lens to match it.
apertur3 wrote:
Agree about the foot. It's too small to hold comfortably (if used as a carrying handle). My only other complaint is the VR, which appears not to work at a specific range of shutter speeds around 1/100. I guess technically, it "works", but the hit rate is very poor. Even at 1/200, I wasn't impressed.
Which camera are you using and are you using a grip with said camera? Also if you have a D850 can you test it in Qc EFCS mode and see if it resolves like it does with the 300PF.....I don't think a 300PF issue in the 500PF would be enough to stop my order as I still think the 300PF is my favourite lens despite the VR issue. When I'm shooting in the 1/100 range on the 300PF it is always going to be for lower light static shots and therefore I just use Qc (I don't need the higher FPS) on the D850 which eliminates the problem for me (gripped D850 with D5 battery in it and no internal battery). I've pretty much stopped using my D500 altogether for this and other reasons...the D850 is now my workhorse....
technic wrote:
I don't get the obsession with 1/100s shutter speeds unless this is representative of the light levels you usually work with. For me (like for others posting on DPR) the primary question would be at what shutter speeds I still can get a high enough percentage of keepers (like 80%).
Same here. I rarely use these shutter speeds, but when I do, my subject is usually pretty immobile. In these cases, my goal is to have one sharp image. So if the test on DPR is representative of what the lens can do, I should get about three usable images in a burst of ten. Obviously, I would prefer to have a higher probability of success at these speeds, but considering my use case, it certainly is not a deal breaker for me.
arbitrage wrote:
Which camera are you using and are you using a grip with said camera? Also if you have a D850 can you test it in Qc EFCS mode and see if it resolves like it does with the 300PF.....I don't think a 300PF issue in the 500PF would be enough to stop my order as I still think the 300PF is my favourite lens despite the VR issue. When I'm shooting in the 1/100 range on the 300PF it is always going to be for lower light static shots and therefore I just use Qc (I don't need the higher FPS) on the D850 which eliminates the problem for me (gripped D850 with D5 battery in it and no internal battery). I've pretty much stopped using my D500 altogether for this and other reasons...the D850 is now my workhorse.......Show more →
I did try some test shots last night in Qc mode, and EFCS is turned on in the menu (not sure if I need to do anything else to activate it). I fired off about 10 shots, and many were still blurry. I wasn't really expecting this VR thing to pop up again since the weight is a lot different from the 300PF, but here it is. I wonder if it is just something with these Fresnel lenses not playing nice with VR or something?
I tested it on an ungripped D850. The lightweight is great, but I'm not sure it's worth the premium price. From what I'm seeing of sharpness, it's not any better than my 200-500 copy. In fact, many images (even the non-blurred ones) looked slightly worse. AF seems a bit snappier, but I didn't do any empirical tests.
fpoet wrote:
Same here. I rarely use these shutter speeds, but when I do, my subject is usually pretty immobile. In these cases, my goal is to have one sharp image. So if the test on DPR is representative of what the lens can do, I should get about three usable images in a burst of ten. Obviously, I would prefer to have a higher probability of success at these speeds, but considering my use case, it certainly is not a deal breaker for me.
This is understandable. However, if I fire off 10 shots on my 200-500 at 1/100, odds are all ten will be usable. If I'm shooting a static subject, I normally fire off 2 or 3 shots just to be safe. With the 500PF, I'd be blasting off 10 shots or more for everything, and then sorting through a ton of bad ones. I'd rather not spend more time on the computer than I have to.
If this happened on my $600 70-300 AF-P lens (which by the way, it doesn't) I could overlook it. However, it's a lot harder of a pill to swallow at $3.6K.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Lenscoat now has the Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF listed.
I have a 'coat' for the 300 PF and think the 500 PF would look
good similarly clad.
Yes, they shipped my lens out to me yesterday and I will have it today with a LensCoat attached. Also they made a TravelCoat for it as well.
Looking forward to trying it today when FedEx gets here.
apertur3 wrote:
Yes, light levels are my problem. For example, I was in the woods on a short hike yesterday around 6pm. In the shade and under tree cover, I was at 1/80 and ISO 12800. The other day, I was around the same speed and at ISO 5000. This is still doable, but if I have to go tp 1/200, 1/500, etc. It's not. My 200-500 handles this like a charm. So yeah, I kind of expect a $3600 lens to match it.
No idea what's going on with your lens, but if you're shooting in such poor light so often you may want to consider a used D5.
