Very good samples. And the falloff is readily apparent as you slide up the scale. Which leads me to ponder; aren't we better off just cropping when necessary and using the bare lens ? By this I mean 1,000mm and 850mm can be very restrictive unless being used for a known stationary object. But if you take wildlife, birds, for an example, situations can change very rapidly. Certainly much quicker than one could remove a TC and reattach a lens. So if degradation in IQ is a known factor, albeit a slight degradation depending on the combo, why not have a wider FOV in case the subject comes closer ? There are some who would argue that cropping can yield better or the same results than a TC and you also don't suffer the light loss or slow down in AF. I guess this is more just a rundown of why i very rarely use a TC. Now, if you're using a 400 2.8, all bets are off
Well, it's obviously true that closer is better, but sometimes you can't and still want to fill the frame. As an example I like shooting airshows. Cropping also depends on your camera body. If I had a D850 I'd crop, but with my D5 I'd use the 1.4x. I was going to run the same test with my D500 but ran out of time. Either way, the results were good enough that the TCs are at least an option to keep in mind depending on what you're shooting and if conditions permit.
I don't shoot airshows but I know enough about them to say if a plane surprises you and decides to head in your direction, to use or not use a TC is probably not your biggest problem at the moment
When I was shooting a horse show, my go-to lens was definitely the 200-400 f/4 zoom. My main reason for getting this lens is the light wieght and reach for aircraft, so my need for a zoom is significantly less. I know the airshow routines and what shots I want beforehand, so using a prime and/or TCs is enough flexibility for me.
ELinder wrote:
When I was shooting a horse show, my go-to lens was definitely the 200-400 f/4 zoom. My main reason for getting this lens is the light wieght and reach for aircraft, so my need for a zoom is significantly less. I know the airshow routines and what shots I want beforehand, so using a prime and/or TCs is enough flexibility for me.
Erich
Totally understand and that makes perfect sense. I can see where carrying that little PF around an airshow is going to be a dream. My bad for forgetting I wasn't on the N&W Forum where my point probably has more relevance.
ELinder wrote:
I decided to try out all 3 Nikon teleconverters on the lens, so I printed a target on a 13x19 sheet. The smallest lines are tiny, even standing right up to the target. I was going to do the AF auto fine-tune, but it was a bit windy. Camera on tripod, VR off, manual exposure with auto-ISO so it's more a typical shooting condition comparison than an ultimate sharpness test. I backed up each time until the target filled the frame. I'd estimate the distances were around 25 feet for the bare lens up to 50 feet for the 2x converter. The 1.4x and 1.7x AF did slow down some, but were still plenty fast. With the 2x TC, Live View hunted quite a bit, but finally did lock focus. In practice it's definitely manual focus only. No crop, 50% LR unsharpened resize 85% quality of SOOC JPG-Fine. I'd have no hesitation in using TCs on this lens.
The tests are much appreciated. If you have any more time to burn could you shoot all the shots from the 2xTC distance and provide the RAW files...I'm always curious if cropping the shot with less TC factor is worse, equal or better? then using the TC. To be honest I've tried these type of tests over the years and have never come to a clear conclusion although I tend towards using a TC over cropping in appropriate light.
Otherwise these examples show pretty nice results with all TCs....2xTCIII made mostly useless with no AF but having the 850 f/9.5 in such a small package is very useful in good light IMO.
ELinder wrote:
When I was shooting a horse show, my go-to lens was definitely the 200-400 f/4 zoom. My main reason for getting this lens is the light wieght ........
Erich
8 pounds is not light. That is 1 pound heavier than the 500 f4 II.
ELinder wrote:
I decided to try out all 3 Nikon teleconverters on the lens, so I printed a target on a 13x19 sheet. The smallest lines are tiny, even standing right up to the target. I was going to do the AF auto fine-tune, but it was a bit windy. Camera on tripod, VR off, manual exposure with auto-ISO so it's more a typical shooting condition comparison than an ultimate sharpness test. I backed up each time until the target filled the frame. I'd estimate the distances were around 25 feet for the bare lens up to 50 feet for the 2x converter. The 1.4x and 1.7x AF did slow down some, but were still plenty fast. With the 2x TC, Live View hunted quite a bit, but finally did lock focus. In practice it's definitely manual focus only. No crop, 50% LR unsharpened resize 85% quality of SOOC JPG-Fine. I'd have no hesitation in using TCs on this lens.
This is exactly what I was waiting for.....A simple focus chart, with realistic distances, shutter speeds, etc.
Now I know exactly what I can expect from this lens and my 1.4 tc III.
This is how I tested my own super teles.
arbitrage wrote:
The tests are much appreciated. If you have any more time to burn could you shoot all the shots from the 2xTC distance and provide the RAW files...I'm always curious if cropping the shot with less TC factor is worse, equal or better? then using the TC. To be honest I've tried these type of tests over the years and have never come to a clear conclusion although I tend towards using a TC over cropping in appropriate light.
Otherwise these examples show pretty nice results with all TCs....2xTCIII made mostly useless with no AF but having the 850 f/9.5 in such a small package is very useful in good light IMO....Show more →
I may redo it in my basement to eliminate as many variables as I can, but that means max distance is 27 feet. Should still work for comparisons if I change the printed target to one large group instead of multiples like the last test.
Just a few from a wildlife refuge fairly close to my home. These cranes are flying in to roost. The evening was perfectly ugly with flat, gray, and overcast light. I visited the refuge with the hope of doing some sunset cranes, but it wasn't meant to be. While I only shot a few hundred pics, I found that the D500 tracked the cranes very well with a higher in-focus rate than what I typically get with the 200-400VR. What's more, the level of detail was much higher than what I have seen when birds are at such a long distance in flat light.
For those interested, these birds were nearly 100 meters out. While you'd think the AF might grab the background trees, they held on to the cranes... I used d25 rather than single spot focus.
I am happy to report the AF-S 500mm f/5.6 PF performs significantly better than the AF-S 200-500 VR when attached to the TC14-E III. I added side by side comparison on my blog, in real world the difference is going to be even greater than under controlled conditions.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I am happy to report the AF-S 500mm f/5.6 PF performs significantly better than the AF-S 200-500 VR when attached to the TC14-E III. I added side by side comparison on my blog, in real world the difference is going to be even greater than under controlled conditions.
fpoet wrote:
I'd be curious to see if the way one holds the lens makes it better or worse.
(I am not questioning handholding technique. Just wondering if there is a way to hold the lens that would attenuate the problem/improve the hit rate.)
Proper handholding makes a difference even for 85-135mm lenses, on anything longer it's a massive factor. For example, I need 1/1250 to get sharp results indistinguishable from tripod on 300mm / D800 combo with somewhat sloppy technique. But if I try harder, it's possible to lower shutter speed down to 1/500. Same can be applied to stabilized lenses.
suteetat wrote:
Hmmm... one interesting finding. With suggestion from @webmstrk9@ earlier today,
I tried this with Z7.
The difference between left and right 1/100s is that the left one is shot with silent shutter or E-shutter.
Seems that it is the mechanical shutter that is having the resonance problem with VR on 500PF, perhaps?
The real question is whether the right one is shot with efc or fully mechanical
xGumbyx wrote:
Surprising indeed. Nikon let Z7 preorderers know that all preorders won't be fulfilled in the first shipment, why not with this lens I wonder. I guess communication isn't their strong point.
maratus wrote:
Proper handholding makes a difference even for 85-135mm lenses, on anything longer it's a massive factor. For example, I need 1/1250 to get sharp results indistinguishable from tripod on 300mm / D800 combo with somewhat sloppy technique. But if I try harder, it's possible to lower shutter speed down to 1/500. Same can be applied to stabilized lenses.
True. Generally speaking, good handholding technique improves the hit rate at lower SS. I don’t have a clue how VR works, so in this particular case, I have no idea if for example, holding the lens close to the AF-L/AF-ON buttons instead of the foot would improve things.
Dont be too critical guys, I'm half blind as is and I hate processing or trying to on a laptop. We're traveling and I'll get a better go at Photoshop when I get home.
This shot from Harris Neck NWR where I carried the D500+500PF one day 6 miles and did not require medical treatment; that alone makes this lens a winner in my book.
About the nearing Sony "mini A9": according to SAR rumors, it is real, and it is very near, and it will have a central viewfinder, so most likely A7/A9 body style. And it should be a good match for the Nikon 500PF as long as Nikon does not have a mirrorless top end APSC camera, and as an alternative to the Nikon D500.
Chris do you mean a match for the D500? In my view D500 is not anywhere near the a9 and I think the mini a9 will trounce it.
My future hope is mini a9 plus Commlite plus 500PF. ChrisMak wrote:
About the nearing Sony "mini A9": according to SAR rumors, it is real, and it is very near, and it will have a central viewfinder, so most likely A7/A9 body style. And it should be a good match for the Nikon 500PF as long as Nikon does not have a mirrorless top end APSC camera, and as an alternative to the Nikon D500.
