fpoet wrote:
Wow. Thanks for doing this. This is actually the kind of difference I was expecting.
In the 200-500 shot, I am recognizing the kind of ‘glow’ (or softness if you will) I sometimes get at f5.6 around the subject even at closer distance.
Good job!
François
Hello Francois,
You are welcome
I typically stop down to f/6.3 when I shoot the 200-500 @ 500mm. When you do this, the highlight glow disappears and the acuity of the lens improves dramatically.
While the 200-500 is definitely softer than the 500PF, it is still an amazingly versatile lens and performs beyond its $1400 price tag. I make this final point, because for $6700 new you can get a 200-400f4. The more expensive zoom is sharper, but not as much as you might think. The benefit of the 200-400 is the f/4 aperture and professional build.
OwlsEyes wrote:
In the 200-500 shot, I am recognizing the kind of ‘glow’ (or softness if you will) I sometimes get at f5.6 around the subject eve
Hello Francois,
You are welcome
I typically stop down to f/6.3 when I shoot the 200-500 @ 500mm. When you do this, the highlight glow disappears and the acuity of the lens improves dramatically.
While the 200-500 is definitely softer than the 500PF, it is still an amazingly versatile lens and performs beyond its $1400 price tag. I make this final point, because for $6700 new you can get a 200-400f4. The more expensive zoom is sharper, but not as much as you might think. The benefit of the 200-400 is the f/4 aperture and professional build.
Yes, Bruce, I have also learned to stop down to f/6.3 with the 200-500. Before I decided to downsize at the end of last year, I was shooting with the Canon 600mmII, so I am finding this a bit far from f/4. If I am going to shoot at f/5.6 and crop like I usually do, it has to be reasonably sharp, and your test confirms what I was expecting from the 500 PF after viewing the MTF charts.
fpoet wrote:
Well, I certainly appreciate the effort. Much more valuable than folks assessing sharpness based on individual pictures taken by different people, in different conditions, with different settings and with different postprocessing skills. I also think that it is at distances (big crops) that the differences will really show, especially with high pixel density bodies.
And, you did the right thing in using the same aperture of course.
The suggestion of using charts may not be a bad idea though. And, if you had access to a 200-500, it would be cool to see the difference as well.
Cheers
Thanks Francois. I chose large distance intentionally because I also feel that it will show the difference much more readily than at 10m distance for example.
Chart is nice test for sharpness but I feel that in real world, sharpness is only a part of the story. Contrast, color saturation, detail in shadow and brighter area etc are all important. To my eyes, 200-500 at close distance shooting charts show center sharpness is quite similar to 500/4e FL and there are plenty of people who have shown that. But in real world at close distance, 200-500 never produce the image that is close to 500/4e FL in my experience (not that 200-500 is bad and especially considering its price, its value cannot be beat). So I am not a big fan of chart personally. Also at 100m distance, I am not sure what kind of chart would be suitable and I certainly would not go knocking on my neighbor's door asking if I could pin a chart on their wall so I can test my lens from my apartment
Unfortunately I sold my 200-500 awhile back. Ever since I bought 500/4e FL, 200-500 got left at home pretty much all the time. If I need more flexibility, I rather bring A7r iii with 100-400GM along with my D850+500/4e FL.
PS I forgot to mention that I was shooting raw and just imported into PS for cropping and conversion to jpg only. No other post processing was done.
arbitrage wrote:
No I haven't done the latest updates....I used the combo yesterday with 400DOII and it was doing so good I'm afraid to touch the FW....even with the 2xTC on the 400DOII, I was getting shot after shot of a foraging plover with Wide AF mode tracking it wherever I wanted to place it in the frame....I love being able to compose as I shoot.....you've probably already seen one of the plover shots in the FE images thread but if not you can go check it out....
Just saw the Plover=killer! at 800mm too.
Yep I might of screwed the pooch upgrading the MC-11 but nothing moving to shoot until
end of November. I'll not touch the FW on the a9.
Wow great comparison by suteetat & OwlsEyes, direct comparison really show the differences!
It'll be nice to see how 500/4 & 500PF both at either f6.3 or f/7.1 at medium distance 100% crop, not only if we can see if 500PF improve stopping down, but the increased DOF may be the actual working aperture that some of us will be using for small birds.
(also to decrease the chance that the birds eye is unsharp like some of the previous test photos)
OwlsEyes wrote:
Hello Francois,
You are welcome
I typically stop down to f/6.3 when I shoot the 200-500 @ 500mm. When you do this, the highlight glow disappears and the acuity of the lens improves dramatically.
While the 200-500 is definitely softer than the 500PF, it is still an amazingly versatile lens and performs beyond its $1400 price tag. I make this final point, because for $6700 new you can get a 200-400f4. The more expensive zoom is sharper, but not as much as you might think. The benefit of the 200-400 is the f/4 aperture and professional build.
cheers,
bruce
---------------------------------------------
fpoet wrote:
Yes, Bruce, I have also learned to stop down to f/6.3 with the 200-500. Before I decided to downsize at the end of last year, I was shooting with the Canon 600mmII, so I am finding this a bit far from f/4. If I am going to shoot at f/5.6 and crop like I usually do, it has to be reasonably sharp, and your test confirms what I was expecting from the 500 PF after viewing the MTF charts.
François
My copy of the 200-500 comes alive at f/6.3 and even a little better at 7.1...I've pulled off good shots at f/5.6 but just that 1/3 stopped down really helps it out. My hope for the 500PF is you won't need to stop it down and it looks like that is the case. The 200-500 below 500mm does really well wide open...just at 500mm it softens a bit....these shots by Bruce show it off well...
I meant to add a few more things...
1: All were autofocus shots taken in AFC single spot. I ripped sequences of three, moved the lens out of focus and repeated 3 times. I did this for every lens, I addition, I tried LiveView focus for the 200-500 just to be sure the AF was spot on. The picture presented was the best in a series of 15 pictures from each lens.
2: I used auto ISO and did no noise reduction.
regards,
bruce
second 200-500 shot looks back-focused. Or is it a contrast drop on Owl that makes it look like that? Really strange....
suteetat wrote:
To be fair, since both 500/4e FL and 500PF were used less than a minute a part, any atmospheric
interference would be about the same so for the purpose of comparison, I would not worry
about atmospheric interference. If you look at absolute sharpness of a particular lens, certainly, that should be taken into account.
suggestion of using MTF chart or bank note is a bit more perplexing since this was shot at about
100m+ by my estimate.
If I have time, I will try near MFD comparison but geez, posting something like this, I feel level of hostility seems to go up higher than posting mediocre regular picture that I am not sure if it worth the effort.
I use f5.6 for both as that would keep shutter speed and iso at the same level. Granted 500/4e FL will have the advantage of stepping down but shooting it wide open will give it one stop advantage in iso or shutter speed as well so there is no way to make this a 100% equal test. ...Show more →
I don't think speedmaster20d meant is as a personal attack. To be honest, if those results are repeatable, I'd either ask Nikon to replace or adjust the lens because smth is wrong. 3600$ prime should outresolve 45mp+ FF sensor at any distance.
But in any case, I appreciate you all spending time and helping us with the information
fpoet wrote:
In the 200-500 shot, I am recognizing the kind of ‘glow’ (or softness if you will) I sometimes get at f5.6 around the subject even at closer distance.
Agree and interesting to see this, it's the same problem I have with the "excellent" Canon 100-400II zoom for closeups. Below f/8 or so there is strong "glow" that destroys any fine detail and cannot be cured in PP; mainly visible on high pixel density sensors like 24 MP APS-C sensors (and larger images, not visible on a small web image). The new Tamron 100-400 zoom has similar soft rendering near MFD, although slightly better than the Canon 100-400. I didn't see this problem with any of my tele primes, but maybe I was lucky? Because most long primes perform very well full open this makes the aperture loss of a zoom even bigger in practice (for closeups).
Because of this I'm very interested to see closeup shots with the 500PF, because that is my primary use for such a long lens. Where I live long distance shots are a waste anyway because even at 200-300mm atmospheric distortion will often be a big problem. 500PF looks very promising in this test compared to the zoom and possibly even better at MFD?
When I'm photographing larger mammals such as deer or moose, 100m is a fairly normal distance. I'm used to seeing some slightly fuzzy images because of atmospheric conditions. Of course I'll prefer a 20m distance to subject if possible. When photographing animals in a landscape, a longer distance is typical. A better quality lens may allow you shoot at a somewhat longer distance and still get an acceptable result.
Suteetat's comparison shows that the 500/4 FL is a better lens than the 500 PF if you shoot both at the same aperture (f/5.6) at a distance of 100m. Optical aberrations due to the lens and atmosphere are cumulative and the 500/4 FL gives a better starting point so the final result looks better. However, it is also much more expensive and heavier lens so a user may still prefer to use the 500 PF for portability or budget reasons, or both.
In OwlsEyes' comparison p.44 #17, the 500 PF image at 40m appears sharper and more contrasty than the 200-500 image.
Putting these results together allows us to place the 500 PF somewhere in the middle between 200-500 and 500 FL in image quality. I think that's a good achievement from Nikon.
At least I really appreciate both the fine practical images posted by members in this thread, as well as the more formal comparison shots which help us make educated decisions about whether to purchase the 500 PF or another lens. I personally think the image quality in the real-world shots (especially the tripod based ones) from the 500 PF is fantastic and would not stop me from buying the lens. The f/5.6 maximum aperture, however, imposes some limitations in my region due to dim natural light conditions especially in winter (but also in the arctic summer nights) and so I may end up with a faster lens because it would be nice to be able to photograph in all conditions. However, the light weight of the 500 PF and fine results apparent in this thread make it tempting.
maratus wrote:
second 200-500 shot looks back-focused. Or is it a contrast drop on Owl that makes it look like that? Really strange....
I don't think speedmaster20d meant is as a personal attack. To be honest, if those results are repeatable, I'd either ask Nikon to replace or adjust the lens because smth is wrong. 3600$ prime should outresolve 45mp+ FF sensor at any distance.
But in any case, I appreciate you all spending time and helping us with the information
I couldn't figure out how to eliminate the second quote, so this is in reference to the first comment...
The picture is not back-focused as I have the full res shots to compare. The wood in the back has more contrast and at f5.6, the 200-500 really "likes" contrast. This is something that I have observed in the past. Lighter objects (like the feathers) tend to reflect or scatter the light just a bit... thus the glow, while the darker appears to be sharper to the brain, but this is just the contrast difference playing with your neurons.
I purposefully shared the AF LiveView of the 20m 100% crop just to be sure the focus was spot on.
Like I said, if I stopped down by a 1/3 to 2/3 stop, those feathers would tighten up... I'd share those, but did not take anything but f/5.6 pics.
technic wrote:
Agree and interesting to see this, it's the same problem I have with the "excellent" Canon 100-400II zoom for closeups. Below f/8 or so there is strong "glow" that destroys any fine detail and cannot be cured in PP; mainly visible on high pixel density sensors like 24 MP APS-C sensors (and larger images, not visible on a small web image). The new Tamron 100-400 zoom has similar soft rendering near MFD, although slightly better than the Canon 100-400. I didn't see this problem with any of my tele primes, but maybe I was lucky? Because most long primes perform very well full open this makes the aperture loss of a zoom even bigger in practice (for closeups).
Because of this I'm very interested to see closeup shots with the 500PF, because that is my primary use for such a long lens. Where I live long distance shots are a waste anyway because even at 200-300mm atmospheric distortion will often be a big problem. 500PF looks very promising in this test compared to the zoom and possibly even better at MFD?...Show more →
If you have not seen them, you should take a look at some of the deer that I posted on page 41. Two of those pictures (the doe and piebald deer) were taken at about 6 meters and f/5.6. While the images are only 1000px high, they were nearly full frame shots from the D500. They are surprisingly sharp especially when you consider that they were taken at ISO3200 to 1600... as the noise & noise reductions steals detail.
cheers,
bruce
One more from me from this morning. This image was made using the D500, ISO 2500, 1/125, f5.6, hand held. I'll do further testing for myself to test different settings over the next couple weeks but my sense is this lens is Sharp, light, great bokeh, works ok with x1.4 converter (better than 200-500vr with converter) but not as good as 600VR, very good AF, not as good as my 600VR but better than my 200-500vr. I'll be keeping "shorty".
One more from me from this morning. This image was made using the D500, ISO 2500, 1/125, f5.6, hand held. I'll do further testing for myself to test different settings over the next couple weeks but my sense is this lens is Sharp, light, great bokeh, works ok with x1.4 converter (better than 200-500vr with converter) but not as good as 600VR, very good AF, not as good as my 600VR but better than my 200-500vr. I'll be keeping "shorty".
OK, I give it another try. The different this time is I took all the pictures in the nice cleare morning with sunlight behind me shinning directly on the tree.
The first try was late afternoon after rain shower with the sun behind the tree, in front of the camera. I was shooting down from my apartment on 11th floor down to a tree on the ground level.
This time, I throw in 300/4e PF with TC14e iii as well. Shutter delay, mirror lockup
no VR, same iso, shutterspeed and F5.6 on all. Shutterspeed was 1/100, iso 64. ( was iso 320, 1/50 in the first trial). Live view focus.
I know, I know, now it turn out I have really bad 300/4PF. Not a lens I used often since I got 200-500 then 500/4e FL as 300 was too short for my use and last time I used it was February last year. Result was actually surprising with 300/4PF but it was reproducible every time. I actually tried it yesterday first in the afternoon but then the rain came before I can shoot all 3 lenses
and wind was a bit too strong anyway and not calm like this morning.
Suteetat clearly 500/4>500PF>300PF+1.4TC.
The real question for many well heeled individuals is whether the 500/4 is 3x's better
And I'm not 100 percent sure your 300PF is representative of all eh. I've seen some of
Arbitrage's shots and Imagemaster's shots with the 300+1.4TCiii that can cut the eye they
are so sharp.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Suteetat clearly 500/4>500PF>300PF+1.4TC.
The real question for many well heeled individuals is whether the 500/4 is 3x's better
And I'm not 100 percent sure your 300PF is representative of all eh. I've seen some of
Arbitrage's shots and Imagemaster's shots with the 300+1.4TCiii that can cut the eye they
are so sharp.
Certainly i dont think 500/4eFL is 3x better and there will be time where you will most likely gets better picture with 500PF because of its weight and maneuverability. I never tried my 300pf at this distance and used it only on one trip with tc when I went trekking in Bhutan for a week. I thought the pictures were fine but never pixel peeped it. Oh well, probably will get rid off it anyhow since I dont use it much and hope other 300PF+tc performs much better at this long distance.of course some lenses also fall short at longer distance while it is excellent at closer distance.
