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.
I also see slightly more contrast in the 500e shots compared to the pf. There is something seriously wrong with the 300 pf combo.
Robert, one interesting question for us dual platform users is how the d500 and the 500 pf compare to the 400 DO II with TC's on the a9. Any thoughts?
Chris_88 wrote:
I also see slightly more contrast in the 500e shots compared to the pf. There is something seriously wrong with the 300 pf combo.
Robert, one interesting question for us dual platform users is how the d500 and the 500 pf compare to the 400 DO II with TC's on the a9. Any thoughts?
Are you interested in how the IQ compares or AF?
I don't have the 500PF to compare yet but the 400DOII competes with my Nikon 500E, so IMO it all depends on how much light you have and how much reach you need....the D500/500PF gives a lot more reach than the A9/400DOII....maxing things out with "useable" TC combos I'd say would be 700/8 on the Nikon and 800/8 on the Canon/Sony.....still giving a lot of reach advantage to the Nikon combo....on the other hand IME the high ISO of the A9 is significantly better than the D500 so as light levels drop and ISO needs to climb, the A9 will claw back some of the "reach" advantage the Nikon combo has in decent/good light. If you can fill an A9 frame with a 400DOII shot it will best the 500PF (I think) for IQ...even with a 1.4TC (and even maybe the 2xTC) I think the 400DOII will hold its own against the bare 500PF....the IQ of the 400DOII even with the 2xTC is really remarkable to me....I sometimes can't believe the IQ it produces even with that hunk of 2xTC glass in the way....
As far as AF goes, there are some pros for each system....overall the A9 is better IMO BUT putting a Canon lens on it brings out some compromises and can result in serious frustrations and missed shots in some quick reaction scenarios where as the native Nikon combo will excel in that type of thing. However, when the A9/400DOII is in the zone of focus you need and you don't screw up and have it try for the distant background (where it will fail and hunt and basically never re-focus) then the A9 AF is better than the D500/D850 IME. Again I don't have the 500PF to compare but those are my opinions even with the top end 500E FL so I can't see the 500PF being any improvement in AF over the 500E.
Chris, Geoff said it all, and said it well.
Only thing I can add is that the 400DOii+A7Riii gave me a crick in the neck from hell two weeks ago
Weight wise the D500+500PF wins. Not important to many but increasingly more critical to me.
Chris I forgot something.
While looking a dual systems please consider the a9+300PF+1.4TCiii. Seek out Alex's work with that combo-his vids.
Again me being weight conscious but for large bierds so far it is a dream. Soon Geoff (I think his Commlite is in route?) can tell us about the smaller bierds.
My hope is in a future Commlite update for the a9 for 500PF compatibility. When that day comes I can give the 400DOii another home.
arbitrage wrote:
Are you interested in how the IQ compares or AF?
I don't have the 500PF to compare yet but the 400DOII competes with my Nikon 500E, so IMO it all depends on how much light you have and how much reach you need....the D500/500PF gives a lot more reach than the A9/400DOII....maxing things out with "useable" TC combos I'd say would be 700/8 on the Nikon and 800/8 on the Canon/Sony.....still giving a lot of reach advantage to the Nikon combo....on the other hand IME the high ISO of the A9 is significantly better than the D500 so as light levels drop and ISO needs to climb, the A9 will claw back some of the "reach" advantage the Nikon combo has in decent/good light. If you can fill an A9 frame with a 400DOII shot it will best the 500PF (I think) for IQ...even with a 1.4TC (and even maybe the 2xTC) I think the 400DOII will hold its own against the bare 500PF....the IQ of the 400DOII even with the 2xTC is really remarkable to me....I sometimes can't believe the IQ it produces even with that hunk of 2xTC glass in the way....
As far as AF goes, there are some pros for each system....overall the A9 is better IMO BUT putting a Canon lens on it brings out some compromises and can result in serious frustrations and missed shots in some quick reaction scenarios where as the native Nikon combo will excel in that type of thing. However, when the A9/400DOII is in the zone of focus you need and you don't screw up and have it try for the distant background (where it will fail and hunt and basically never re-focus) then the A9 AF is better than the D500/D850 IME. Again I don't have the 500PF to compare but those are my opinions even with the top end 500E FL so I can't see the 500PF being any improvement in AF over the 500E....Show more →
Thanks for sharing your impressions, Geoff. For me the question is should I stay with Nikon for wildlife and pair the 500PF with my D500 or keep my big 500 4. Alternatively I could move completely to Sony, by adding an a9 and some lighter long lens such as the DO II. I can't seem to make up my mind.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Chris, Geoff said it all, and said it well.
Only thing I can add is that the 400DOii+A7Riii gave me a crick in the neck from hell two weeks ago
Weight wise the D500+500PF wins. Not important to many but increasingly more critical to me.
Chris I forgot something.
While looking a dual systems please consider the a9+300PF+1.4TCiii. Seek out Alex's work with that combo-his vids.
Again me being weight conscious but for large bierds so far it is a dream. Soon Geoff (I think his Commlite is in route?) can tell us about the smaller bierds.
My hope is in a future Commlite update for the a9 for 500PF compatibility. When that day comes I can give the 400DOii another home....Show more →
Thanks, Robert. I'm really struggling with this wildlife puzzle. Having the 500 4 is nice, but my back isn't perfect and I do have situations where I would like to bring the lens, but can't, because it's just too big.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Chris, Geoff said it all, and said it well.
Only thing I can add is that the 400DOii+A7Riii gave me a crick in the neck from hell two weeks ago
Weight wise the D500+500PF wins. Not important to many but increasingly more critical to me.
Chris I forgot something.
While looking a dual systems please consider the a9+300PF+1.4TCiii. Seek out Alex's work with that combo-his vids.
Again me being weight conscious but for large bierds so far it is a dream. Soon Geoff (I think his Commlite is in route?) can tell us about the smaller bierds.
My hope is in a future Commlite update for the a9 for 500PF compatibility. When that day comes I can give the 400DOii another home....Show more →
The Commlite is on the way....CanadaPost was going to go on strike tomorrow but I guess they aren't now (yet) so hopefully my adapter will make the border tomorrow and get to me by Thur/Fri....then I will report back how that is with 300PF and 500E and 200-500......
I would say about 100m. I am on 11th floor. The tree is 2 houses over but in a very big plot of land so if my highschool trigonometry is right, somewhere between 80-100m should be right.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Speaking of! What was the physical distance between your floor and the trees?
Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks for sharing your impressions, Geoff. For me the question is should I stay with Nikon for wildlife and pair the 500PF with my D500 or keep my big 500 4. Alternatively I could move completely to Sony, by adding an a9 and some lighter long lens such as the DO II. I can't seem to make up my mind.
I would probably stay with Nikon for now....and if you value a lighter lens and can handle a stop less of light then the 500PF is a no brainer. I'm also debating whether to keep 500/4 or sell it when the 500PF arrives....also considering cancelling 500PF and sticking with 500/4 and 300PF instead....of course I also have this Sony stuff and Canon lenses so my gear bag is a big mess right now....although it has been reduced significantly from a few years ago so things are getting better....
Maybe a sad advantage of getting older and all the pains associated=a smaller set of gears and decisions to make.
Suteetat thanks for the distance.
100m....that is (to me in my world) a crazy distance. That the 300+1.4TC did that well at that distance isn't so bad at all. Heck, I wouldn't be able to see anything at 100 meters to even try for.
arbitrage wrote:
I would probably stay with Nikon for now....and if you value a lighter lens and can handle a stop less of light then the 500PF is a no brainer. I'm also debating whether to keep 500/4 or sell it when the 500PF arrives....also considering cancelling 500PF and sticking with 500/4 and 300PF instead....of course I also have this Sony stuff and Canon lenses so my gear bag is a big mess right now....although it has been reduced significantly from a few years ago so things are getting better....
I do value the lighter lens for sure, but I'm still a bit concerned about the 700 8 combo's AF performance in less than ideal light. Robert's and other posters' shots in this thread suggest that sharpness should be a lesser concern. Thing I have to come up with a decision pretty soon, as I don't think the store is going to hold onto my 500 PF forever, seeing how popular that lens is.
I don't think with my lens/situation/environ sharpness to be an issue. Moreso ISO and my crap weather. Well that's my excuse.
Plus it is always on me to get closer no matter what lens I'm using.
In a way, I am glad that Nikon produces PF lenses and both Sony and Canon already show that they are capable of producing fast super tele with significant weight reduction over previous models. For now 3kg is my limit that I can handhold for short period of time. Enough for what I need to do but that wont last . Hopefully Nikon will follow suit and hurry up 600/5.6 PF already
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Maybe a sad advantage of getting older and all the pains associated=a smaller set of gears and decisions to make.
Suteetat thanks for the distance.
100m....that is (to me in my world) a crazy distance. That the 300+1.4TC did that well at that distance isn't so bad at all. Heck, I wouldn't be able to see anything at 100 meters to even try for.
Suteetat my comfortable wielding weight is now 3-3.5 pounds/1.58 kg.
I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and the 600PF.
While we are dreaming I'm asking Santa for Sony FE400/4, F4.5 might even be better
The 400DOii is 4.6 pounds....surely Sony magic could take 1.5 pounds off.
suteetat wrote:
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....Show more →
It looks to me like the 300PF + TC combo is backfocused (check left/lower corner). Looking forward to more tests including closer distance; also because my experience is that at close distance there can big differences (and bright lenses are sometimes a lot worse than for large subject distance).
arbitrage wrote:
Are you interested in how the IQ compares or AF?
I don't have the 500PF to compare yet but the 400DOII competes with my Nikon 500E, so IMO it all depends on how much light you have and how much reach you need....the D500/500PF gives a lot more reach than the A9/400DOII....maxing things out with "useable" TC combos I'd say would be 700/8 on the Nikon and 800/8 on the Canon/Sony.....still giving a lot of reach advantage to the Nikon combo....on the other hand IME the high ISO of the A9 is significantly better than the D500 so as light levels drop and ISO needs to climb, the A9 will claw back some of the "reach" advantage the Nikon combo has in decent/good light. If you can fill an A9 frame with a 400DOII shot it will best the 500PF (I think) for IQ...even with a 1.4TC (and even maybe the 2xTC) I think the 400DOII will hold its own against the bare 500PF....the IQ of the 400DOII even with the 2xTC is really remarkable to me....I sometimes can't believe the IQ it produces even with that hunk of 2xTC glass in the way....
As far as AF goes, there are some pros for each system....overall the A9 is better IMO BUT putting a Canon lens on it brings out some compromises and can result in serious frustrations and missed shots in some quick reaction scenarios where as the native Nikon combo will excel in that type of thing. However, when the A9/400DOII is in the zone of focus you need and you don't screw up and have it try for the distant background (where it will fail and hunt and basically never re-focus) then the A9 AF is better than the D500/D850 IME. Again I don't have the 500PF to compare but those are my opinions even with the top end 500E FL so I can't see the 500PF being any improvement in AF over the 500E....Show more →
Too bad Sony doesn't have a native DO/PF lens of 400DOII quality (and that Canon doesn't make a more modest spec DO tele prime). Even if the mount adapters work well with the Nikon PF lenses, there still is significant risk that the next firmware update or body upgrades messes up things.
technic wrote:
It looks to me like the 300PF + TC combo is backfocused (check left/lower corner). Looking forward to more tests including closer distance; also because my experience is that at close distance there can big differences (and bright lenses are sometimes a lot worse than for large subject distance).
I was using live view focus though so front/back focus should not be an issue and I took several shots of each lens and checked for consistency before picking one. But you are right, the leaves further back appeaed in better focus while on 500/4, 500/5.6 PF, they are all out of focus. Weird. Not sure why would that happened with live view focus
technic wrote:
Too bad Sony doesn't have a native DO/PF lens of 400DOII quality (and that Canon doesn't make a more modest spec DO tele prime). Even if the mount adapters work well with the Nikon PF lenses, there still is significant risk that the next firmware update or body upgrades messes up things.
Don't update! Ha! I think many of us adapting have been burned by updates in the past. I've learned not to rush into them.
technic wrote:
Too bad Sony doesn't have a native DO/PF lens of 400DOII quality (and that Canon doesn't make a more modest spec DO tele prime). Even if the mount adapters work well with the Nikon PF lenses, there still is significant risk that the next firmware update or body upgrades messes up things.
I'll go a step further... it is too bad that Sony does not make a 300mm f/4 or budget friendly super tele like a 400/500mm f5.6. These could be mass produced, would likely sell robustly, and might drive Nikon/Canon users to consider trying an A7iii or A9. I have been following the updates about the Sony 400mm f2.8, and it looks as if they are hand assembled, This may be great for overall craftsmanship and quality, but it results in a crazy slow pipeline. For those complaining about not getting their Nikon PF lens until November, Sony has told others that they will have to wait until late 2019...
It will be hard for Sony to really jump into the sports/wildlife market without increasing the availability of their long glass. I believe that Sony has indicated that they will be expanding their super-tele line, but if the lenses are not ready to ship to excited buyers, I don't think that a lot of consumers will be willing to wait a year to make the purchase.
suteetat wrote:
Not sure why would that happened with live view focus
It's possible the 300 PF focus cannot be controlled that precisely (TC increases the requirements for precision of focus) and that may be why even LVAF cannot achieve perfect in some cases. I have noticed focus errors with the 1.4X using that lens especially towards longer distances. Without TC the AF seems to work fine.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'll go a step further... it is too bad that Sony does not make a 300mm f/4 or budget friendly super tele like a 400/500mm f5.6. These could be mass produced, would likely sell robustly, and might drive Nikon/Canon users to consider trying an A7iii or A9. I have been following the updates about the Sony 400mm f2.8, and it looks as if they are hand assembled, This may be great for overall craftsmanship and quality, but it results in a crazy slow pipeline. For those complaining about not getting their Nikon PF lens until November, Sony has told others that they will have to wait until late 2019...
It will be hard for Sony to really jump into the sports/wildlife market without increasing the availability of their long glass. I believe that Sony has indicated that they will be expanding their super-tele line, but if the lenses are not ready to ship to excited buyers, I don't think that a lot of consumers will be willing to wait a year to make the purchase....Show more →
If the "late 2019" was based off of my comment yesterday, I had mis-typed, my dealer said he could very likely (but not for sure) get me one by the end of 2018....maybe someone else heard late 2019 but if it was just my reply I've corrected it since.
