Sort of... not everyone wants the weight of a zoom. For about $500 less they could make a faster well corrected and more compact lens... but I do get your point.
arbitrage wrote:
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.
Geoff... my comments were based on what I saw from you on the Sony forum.
I am glad to hear that you will not have to wait a year for the lens... I have a feeling that you will not want to use your Nikon gear any longer if you have a pair A9's (or an A9-cropper), 100-400, 400mm f/2.8 and a pair of converters at your disposal. This seems to be a relatively light and super flexible kit for any wildlife shooter.
Heck, if I had the $20,000 or so available to build a kit like this, I'd definitely go for it. However, sticking to the intent of this thread, I have definitely fallen for the 500mm PF... it is much sharper than I expected at f/5.6... I am now considering the sale of my 200-400VR and replacing it with a new 300mm pf + TC14iii... kicking myself for selling the 300PF I had.
While I'd love a piece of f/2.8 glass... I can go anywhere (on any plane) or backpack w/ my FStop Tilopa with a 3 bodies, a 500PF, 300PF, 70-200 f4, and 16-35 f/4 and still have room for a change of clothes and a sleeping bag in the pack!
OwlsEyes wrote:
Sort of... not everyone wants the weight of a zoom. For about $500 less they could make a faster well corrected and more compact lens... but I do get your point.
You are correct, but how many of those same people buy one or more primes to cover those same focal-lengths from 100mm to 400mm, and as a result end up carrying more weight than the zoom, and sometimes paying more also.
suteetat wrote:
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
I took 3-4 photos and they were all like that.
Could subject movement due to wind be a factor? Anyway, on my Canon 80D Liveview doesn't guarantee perfect focus either compared to what I can do using MF with magnified Liveview. In some situations the Liveview AF is 1-2 clicks off, don't know why but apparently it isn't full proof. With Canon 80D the Liveview AF seems just as good as their normal AF in finding the part of the subject that is furthest away from the camera (instead of closest), especially with subjects that are relatively close.
Imagemaster wrote:
You made my point. The Sony 100-400G with a 1.4x & 2x would give you 100-800mm with less weight and cost. And I bet the same IQ.
I checked Sony 100-400GM briefly against 500PF at long distance and if anything, 100-400 is actually
slightly sharper with better contrast. Personally I think its sharpness is not much behind 500/4e FL at all.
However, there is some variation on 100-400 as well and I went through 2 copies of it when initially I had a little problem. My current 100-400 is quite a bit sharper than the other copy that I tried.
The only draw back for 100-400GM is that I think bokeh is a little bit on the nervous side and so far I think I prefer 500PF/500e FL bokeh more and I can't get as good and isolation with it as 500/4 (no big surprise there). Even though I will get Z7 and use that instead of my A7r iii as a second body (when M to Z mount adapter is available) as it should work with F mount lenses better than A7r iii with Commlite adapter, it will be very hard to part with Sony because of 100-400GM. As much as I like some of the Batis, Loxia and other E mount lenses that I own, I won't miss them much considering other systems that I have except for 100-400 that is irreplaceable with the rest of my gears.
---------------------------------------------
technic wrote:
Could subject movement due to wind be a factor? Anyway, on my Canon 80D Liveview doesn't guarantee perfect focus either compared to what I can do using MF with magnified Liveview. In some situations the Liveview AF is 1-2 clicks off, don't know why but apparently it isn't full proof. With Canon 80D the Liveview AF seems just as good as their normal AF in finding the part of the subject that is furthest away from the camera (instead of closest), especially with subjects that are relatively close.
If there was any wind factor, it was very small. On live view (I did not use magnifier), I did not notice any significant leaves movement by wind at all. Technically since D850 uses CDAF only on live view and I was in AF-S mode, it really should be the most accurate although slowest AF for D850.
ilkka_nissila's suggestion for focus error of 300/4+ TC14 may explain it but many people have showed perfect focus and sharp shots with the combination which is rather annoying
suteetat wrote:
ilkka_nissila's suggestion for focus error of 300/4+ TC14 may explain it but many people have showed perfect focus and sharp shots with the combination which is rather annoying
I don't much like the 300/4 PF + TC-14E III, to me the focus is much too uncertain and rarely do I get it "just right", but I tend to shoot with it in low light so maybe I'm asking for it. At longer distances the focus issues with the TC combination are increased. My impression is that the lens just isn't focusing precisely enough with the narrower DOF available when the TC is mounted.
Are those reports of perfect focus accompanied with 100% crops?
Individual TC and lens and camera body samples may produce slightly different results. I've never been a fan of TCs myself and prefer shooting without, when possible.
I'm not a Sony user and have no experience with the 100-400, but from images posted by others, it seems it is sharp but the bokeh of a 500mm at f/5.6 is rather more impressive than what I've seen from the Sony zoom. There is a "dreamy beauty" in images from 500/5.6 PF at f/5.6 that one can not get from the usual zooms at shorter focal lengths, and the subject is just more effectively separated from the background. I think this has great value in making beautiful images.
Imagemaster wrote:
You made my point. The Sony 100-400G with a 1.4x & 2x would give you 100-800mm with less weight and cost. And I bet the same IQ.
Maybe
I guess I'm just not at a place where I am ready to give up specialized optics. In addition, I am not convinced that the Sony 100-400 w/ a converter at f/8 is better than what I am seeing from the 500mm PF with my D500.
Personally, I'm not ready to embrace the Sony body design / layout... but I am intrigued by their system.
Given your argument... are you thinking of dipping a toe into their system?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I don't much like the 300/4 PF + TC-14E III, to me the focus is much too uncertain and rarely do I get it "just right", but I tend to shoot with it in low light so maybe I'm asking for it. At longer distances the focus issues with the TC combination are increased. My impression is that the lens just isn't focusing precisely enough with the narrower DOF available when the TC is mounted.
Are those reports of perfect focus accompanied with 100% crops?
Individual TC and lens and camera body samples may produce slightly different results. I've never been a fan of TCs myself and prefer shooting without, when possible.
I'm not a Sony user and have no experience with the 100-400, but from images posted by others, it seems it is sharp but the bokeh of a 500mm at f/5.6 is rather more impressive than what I've seen from the Sony zoom. There is a "dreamy beauty" in images from 500/5.6 PF at f/5.6 that one can not get from the usual zooms at shorter focal lengths, and the subject is just more effectively separated from the background. I think this has great value in making beautiful images....Show more →
The Nikon 500mm PF looks very nice indeed, the bokeh looks more agreeable to me than that of the Sony 100-400.
The 500PF and the Canon 400DOII (which also looks very nice and seems to do well with TC's) are the lenses that I am intending to get, that is: one of them.
suteetat wrote:
The only draw back for 100-400GM is that I think bokeh is a little bit on the nervous side and so far I think I prefer 500PF/500e FL bokeh more and I can't get as good and isolation with it as 500/4 (no big surprise there). Even though I will get Z7 and use that instead of my A7r iii as a second body (when M to Z mount adapter is available) as it should work with F mount lenses better than A7r iii with Commlite adapter, it will be very hard to part with Sony because of 100-400GM. As much as I like some of the Batis, Loxia and other E mount lenses that I own, I won't miss them much considering other systems that I have except for 100-400 that is irreplaceable with the rest of my gears....Show more →
Yes, it just depends on one's priorities. Bokeh is one of the last things I worry about, especially when I can alter it in PP. I would rather have the convenience and versatility of the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC on it, giving me 140mm to 560mm in one package, even if that is at f8.
Brian, this lens will be great for airshows. It's light enought to hold all day and small enough to swing quickly while panning. As soon as I get the chance to do a focus adjust series I'll take this and the 300PF out to the airport. I think they'll make a great travel combo.
Imagemaster wrote:
Yes, it just depends on one's priorities. Bokeh is one of the last things I worry about, especially when I can alter it in PP. I would rather have the convenience and versatility of the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC on it, giving me 140mm to 560mm in one package, even if that is at f8.
Certainly I think 100-400GM is the best zoom that I ever tried and does not give up much in term of sharpness to the top primes. Couple it with 1.4x TC should still be perfectly great. I have not try 2.0x TC with it and A7r iii yet. I wonder how the focus is.
However, I shoot mostly birds and for that I am almost always at 500-700mm range with my 500mm, more often with 1.4tc on it and some cropping. So I don't really have as much use for 100-400 right now.
I had a blast with it in Kenya though. Unfortunately my next safari trip won't be until 2020
