arbitrage wrote:
It is so weird because for the D850 we had them on shelves in Canada in November last year (short lived on shelves but often listed "In Stock" for a few days in a row)....totally opposite with this 500PF situation.....
Maybe complain loudly on social media? Their Canadian Nikon Ambassador, Michelle Valberg ( @michellevalberg on Twitter) is a huge advocate of the 500PF.
arbitrage wrote:
Man, the news gets worse and worse....I emailed my guy to inquire about a CDN shipment last week when the new US shipment came in and never heard back....that isn't good......
arbitrage wrote:
LensTip finally got around to testing a copy of the 200-500 lens so we can now compare those results to the 500PF test they did last month.....spoiler....the 500PF lives up to its price point....
With the graphs posted you want to compare the green dots on the 200-500 graph with the red dots on the 500PF graph....
I also threw in the 180-400 graph....just for kicks.....however interesting is that the 180-400/1.4TC engaged doesn't do any better than these other lenses and in fact the 500PF at 500 outperforms the 180-400 at 550.....hhmmmm.....Now the bare 180-400 at 400 is another story all together.... ...Show more →
Thanks for this. What I am also noting is that the APS-C edges on the 500 PF graph are still very good at f/5.6, which indicates that there is a relatively large area that is sharp in the frame (compared to the 200-500), which is on par with the Nikon MTF charts.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Good showing from the 500 PF in Lenstip tests.
The TC results from the 180-400 align with what I think of TCs in general.
Not sure that's fair.
The 180-400 shows close to "almost Otus-like" sharpness wide-open, and stopped down one click, blowing the doors off the 200-500 (and 500 PF), in a totally different league, sharpness-wise, within its intended range (180-400) ...
And, with the TC engaged, at the very outermost stretch of its capability, outside its native range, it (brown dot) still *bests* the 200-500 at 500 (green dot).
And we're not even getting into quality of rendering and bokeh ...
fpoet wrote:
Thanks for this. What I am also noting is that the APS-C edges on the 500 PF graph are still very good at f/5.6, which indicates that there is a relatively large area that is sharp in the frame (compared to the 200-500), which is on par with the Nikon MTF charts.
Yes and even the FF edge of the 500PF is equal to the center of the 200-500 wide open.
The 180-400 shows close to "almost Otus-like" sharpness wide-open, and stopped down one click, blowing the doors off the 200-500 (and 500 PF), in a totally different league, sharpness-wise, within its intended range (180-400) ...
And, with the TC engaged, at the very outermost stretch of its capability, outside its native range, it (brown dot) still *bests* the 200-500 at 500 (green dot).
And we're not even getting into quality of rendering and bokeh ...
How do you relate a score of 42.5 for the 500PF to a score of 45 for the 180-400 at 400? Do you have some sort of scale that defines a 2.5 delta as "blowing the doors off"?
In regards to the 180-400, I don't think we can say that getting to 550mm is outside its native range as it is marketed (and priced) to have a carefully matched/calibrated internal TC which if I was paying $12K for a lens with a built-in TC I'd honestly be expecting it's 550mm performance to be at least matching a 500/5.6 prime lens that costs 1/3 of the price. Having been a previous owner of the Canon 200-400/1.4 lens I can say that without that lens performing for me with internal 1.4 and even with internal and external 1.4s it would have been bad value....the only reason that lens was worth it to me was I could travel with a single lens and shoot 200-784mm...combine that with a FF and APS-C body and I had a really big range....that lens made it on more international trips than any of my other big lenses ever did.
Now I will add that we always have to keep in mind that these LensTip scores are based on single copies of each lens. We just don't know how much variability exists out there although I'd expect we'd see more variability in the cheaper lenses than the most expensive ones....who knows?
Finally, going back to my first point and in close relation to our past "discussions" about LenScore data, how does one relate a given delta between scores to actual in the field end results? That is a question that is very hard to answer. In Brad Hill's review of the 180-400 he was over the moon impressed with the 550mm results....it will be interesting to see when he gets his 500PF and compares it to his 180-400 at 500mm.......
fpoet wrote:
I just go to quickly try the 500mm PF at the local photo show. I was impressed with the size and AF looked good. What is disappointing, though, is what the Nikon reps told me: it apparently will not be available before February/March in Canada.
I just want to add to this that they did not indicate whether this was for in-store availability or preorders.
arbitrage wrote:
How do you relate a score of 42.5 for the 500PF to a score of 45 for the 180-400 at 400? Do you have some sort of scale that defines a 2.5 delta as "blowing the doors off"?
I was referring more to the 200-500.
arbitrage wrote:
In regards to the 180-400, I don't think we can say that getting to 550mm is outside its native range as it is marketed (and priced) to have a carefully matched/calibrated internal TC which if I was paying $12K for a lens with a built-in TC I'd honestly be expecting it's 550mm performance to be at least matching a 500/5.6 prime lens that costs 1/3 of the price. Having been a previous owner of the Canon 200-400/1.4 lens I can say that without that lens performing for me with internal 1.4 and even with internal and external 1.4s it would have been bad value....the only reason that lens was worth it to me was I could travel with a single lens and shoot 200-784mm...combine that with a FF and APS-C body and I had a really big range....that lens made it on more international trips than any of my other big lenses ever did....Show more →
We? I think it's best to define your opinion as yours, and leave mine as mine.
IMO, native range is the range of the lens, sans TC.
The TC being internal is still the deployment of a TC.
The difference is in the convenience of applying it (instantly, with a lever, versus removing the lens, adding the adapter, and re-connecting the equipment to the camera).
I agree the combined package is what makes these zooms attractive ... but let's also clarify that it's the combined package with Nikon's best glass, not Nikon's mid-grade glass.
arbitrage wrote:
Now I will add that we always have to keep in mind that these LensTip scores are based on single copies of each lens. We just don't know how much variability exists out there although I'd expect we'd see more variability in the cheaper lenses than the most expensive ones....who knows?
I think it's safe to say Nikon knows, and has priced each according to this knowledge.
The LensTip scores merely confirm the obviousness of the pricing and placement in Nikon's hierarchy.
arbitrage wrote:
Finally, going back to my first point and in close relation to our past "discussions" about LenScore data, how does one relate a given delta between scores to actual in the field end results? That is a question that is very hard to answer. In Brad Hill's review of the 180-400 he was over the moon impressed with the 550mm results....it will be interesting to see when he gets his 500PF and compares it to his 180-400 at 500mm.......
I think here we come to the interesting point: "test results" vs. "individual perception."
My 300 PF doesn't measure up to my 300 VR II on any test chart. If a person were to look at the graphs of online reports, he wouldn't want the 300 PF.
But, really, in the field, and when factoring the actual experience of being able to hand-hold the 300 PF, no sweat, to enjoy unencumbered hiking again, to have the advantage of immediate deployment (thanks to the light-weight dexterity), suddenly the 300 PF is the better lens to own, experience ... and utilize ... despite the "online graphs" and "internet opinions" expressed as the result of lab tests, and NOT actually using either in the challenging real world.
At least that's my own personal experience, having owned and compared both, in a wide-variety of circumstances, lugging each of them around for hours.
The 180-400 shows close to "almost Otus-like" sharpness wide-open, and stopped down one click, blowing the doors off the 200-500 (and 500 PF), in a totally different league, sharpness-wise, within its intended range (180-400) ...
And, with the TC engaged, at the very outermost stretch of its capability, outside its native range, it (brown dot) still *bests* the 200-500 at 500 (green dot).
And we're not even getting into quality of rendering and bokeh ...
The 180-400 doesn't "blow the doors off" the 500 pf at all. The 180-400 at 400mm it is only 2.5 lpmm sharper and with the TC it is way less sharp at about 8 lpmm wide open. You'd be hard pressed seeing 2.5 lpmm even in the best of circumstances.
As for "rendering" and bokeh, the bokeh and rendering looks excellent to me from the 500 PF. Smooth bokeh, excellent colors and sharp as a tack. The 500 pf is an *amazing* lens.
Even on complex highlighted backgrounds where most lenses struggle.
Lance B wrote:
The 180-400 doesn't "blow the doors off" the 500 pf at all. The 180-400 at 400mm it is only 2.5 lpmm sharper and with the TC it is way less sharp at about 8 lpmm wide open. You'd be hard pressed seeing 2.5 lpmm even in the best of circumstances.
To repeat, my comparison was mostly directed at the 200-500.
Lance B wrote:
As for "rendering" and bokeh, the bokeh and rendering looks excellent to me from the 500 PF. Smooth bokeh, excellent colors and sharp as a tack. The 500 pf is an *amazing* lens.
Even on complex highlighted backgrounds where most lenses struggle.
I was autofocus fine tuning the 500mm PF lens on first my D850 and then the D500. With both cameras there was no adjustment needed but what surprised me was how much better the IQ was with the D850.
In theory the D850 in DX is a 19MP camera as compared to 20.9MP with the D500 so when looking at a small section with an autofocus target I would expected the D500 to be as good or slightly better. But that is on paper and ignores the new sensor design provided with the D850 or new signal processing firmware that it utilizes.
The D850 images showed greater apparent acuity and greater contrast of the LensAlign long ruler. I can certainly understand now why ones perception of the IQ provided with this lens is to a large degree dependent on the camera that is used.
I am also reconsidering my perception of the D500 camera as being comparable to the D850 in DX mode. I will be checking both cameras with the 600mm f/4E lens to add to the mix.
