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.
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.
Well stated from someone who has/uses both. Wonderful examples Lance. Color
me super jealous of the variety of bierds you have there---and their colors are
awesome.
It's the reason I prefer my 300 f/4 PF to my 300 f/2.8 VR II.
No rebuttal, that'd be out of school for me since I do not own (nor could tarry under) any of the big blacks.
I too own the 300PF and it is destined for my hall of lens fame...nothing else like it in the Canon world. Sadly,
nothing like it in my Sony world but luckily mine loves to ride the a9....and is serviceable for perched bierds
on the A7Riii (though not idea).
Again, only thing I can logically look at is weight....and my inability to seriously consider most anything above
3.5 pounds. The 400DOii is an exception only because it is bought and paid for and works even better on the
a9 than the 300PF.
Still if given the choice and a bit of light I'd grab the 300PF+1.4TCiii and get more keepers than with the 400DOii
simply because of wieldability. I'd even venture the 300PF is just as sharp as the 400DOii=remarkable job by
Nikon.
Years back when the 400 DO was introduced, I was really surprised how light it was and easy to handle. Fast forward at least ten years and I just played with the Nikon 500 PF at PhotoPlus in NY. Holy mother of miniature. Not only is it incredibly cute, but it’s so tiny for what it is. So light for what it is.
I say charts, specs be damned, that thing is awesome.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Well stated from someone who has/uses both. Wonderful examples Lance. Color
me super jealous of the variety of bierds you have there---and their colors are
awesome.
Thank you very much for your kind comments, MM. Much appreciated!
JohnK007 wrote:
I was referring more to the 200-500.
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.
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.
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....Show more →
That Nikon 300/2.8 VRII which I've now used two copies of is a lens in dire need of updating to modern E FL standards and really even more than that now that Sony and Canon have shown what sort of weight reductions are possible without even using DO/PF designs.
It may not need IQ, rendering and those type of improvements although to be honest all the shots I have in my catalogue from the two copies have never impressed me over a lot of other lenses I've owned in this type of category. f/2.8 gets you the f/2.8 look but otherwise I just wasn't wowed by it in any way that would make me put up with the current weight.
You can now buy a 400 f/2.8 that is lighter and a 600 f/4 that is 150gm heavier than the Nikon 300/2.8 VR II.....way overdue.....
arbitrage wrote:
That Nikon 300/2.8 VRII which I've now used two copies of is a lens in dire need of updating to modern E FL standards and really even more than that now that Sony and Canon have shown what sort of weight reductions are possible without even using DO/PF designs.
It may not need IQ, rendering and those type of improvements although to be honest all the shots I have in my catalogue from the two copies have never impressed me over a lot of other lenses I've owned in this type of category. f/2.8 gets you the f/2.8 look but otherwise I just wasn't wowed by it in any way that would make me put up with the current weight.
You can now buy a 400 f/2.8 that is lighter and a 600 f/4 that is 150gm heavier than the Nikon 300/2.8 VR II.....way overdue........Show more →
I wholeheartedly agree.
The lens' capabilities are excellent, but its weight (and its front-heavy construction) made it a PITA to carry.
The "test charts" may show the 300 VR II to be the better lens than the 300 PF, but the visible difference in image quality is actually negligible (to non-existent) in real world use ... while the comfort and joy of using the 300 PF in the field *towers* over the discomfort of using the VR II.
The best switch I ever made ...
PS: Up close, for hummingbird shots, the 1:4 magnification + close-focus (4') of the 300 PF blows the 300 VR II (8') away ...
Lance what body did you use for these shots? Also how big are the crops? Were these wild birds or shot in a zoo? The details on them are fantastic as is your processing. But to judge the lens based on the images presented having more info would really help. Thanks and looking forward to your response. As a long time Canon user, this lens has gotten my attention big time. I will purchase the new Canon 600 f4 iii and am seriously considering buying a d850 and the 500 pf as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and looking forward to your response.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Still if given the choice and a bit of light I'd grab the 300PF+1.4TCiii and get more keepers than with the 400DOii
simply because of wieldability. I'd even venture the 300PF is just as sharp as the 400DOii=remarkable job by
Nikon.
That's my conundrum with the 300 PF vs. 500 PF.
I've grown so accustomed to the joy of not needing a tripod ... and being able to "shoot macro" with the 300 PF + 2x TC III (~1:2), from 4' away ... in addition to being able to have ~900mm of effective reach on my D500 ... that it's difficult to get me excited about this (or any other) hiking lens.
I understand the 500 is a good lens, mostly for those without the 300 PF + TC options.
For those with the 300 + TC options, the charts may show the 500 PF is slightly better, but in real-world use the difference is negligible 9x out of 10 ... and the 300 PF allows for closer proximity + greater magnification with subjects such as butterflies, dragonflies, hummingbirds, etc.
JohnK007 wrote:
That's my conundrum with the 300 PF vs. 500 PF.
I've grown so accustomed to the joy of not needing a tripod ... and being able to "shoot macro" with the 300 PF + 2x TC III (~1:2), from 4' away ... in addition to being able to have ~900mm of effective reach on my D500 ... that it's difficult to get me excited about this (or any other) hiking lens.
I understand the 500 is a good lens, mostly for those without the 300 PF + TC options.
For those with the 300 + TC options, the charts may show the 500 PF is slightly better, but in real-world use the difference is negligible 9x out of 10 ... and the 300 PF allows for closer proximity + greater magnification with subjects such as butterflies, dragonflies, hummingbirds, etc....Show more →
This is why I'm extremely close to saying my final goodbyes to my 500PF aspirations....it just doesn't give me much if anything over my 300PF and TCs...and the MFD sort of seals the deal on why the 300PF/TCs is the better option.
However, the two things that I would value in the 500PF over the 300PF(TCs) is that I would be able to use Auto AF at 500/5.6 instead of 420/5.6 and I like AutoAF for fast, small BIF and situations requiring a very quick reaction. I would also get an extra 100mm at f/8 which I think is significant and having to only use a 1.4TC vs using a 2xTC to get to the f/8 level can only be a plus (despite how happy I am with my 300PF/2xTC). Although without taking Auto AF into consideration, at the 500mm mark I'm okay with a 1/2 stop loss using the 1.7TC on the 300PF vs the 500PF.
Anyways, I still have one 500PF preorder in the game so I'm not out just yet
aboutthelight wrote:
Lance what body did you use for these shots? Also how big are the crops? Were these wild birds or shot in a zoo? The details on them are fantastic as is your processing. But to judge the lens based on the images presented having more info would really help. Thanks and looking forward to your response. As a long time Canon user, this lens has gotten my attention big time. I will purchase the new Canon 600 f4 iii and am seriously considering buying a d850 and the 500 pf as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and looking forward to your response. ...Show more →
The first 3 shots are from the D850 and the last 3 are from the Z7. All except for the last is with no or little cropping, the last is cropped about 30%. 1, 2, 4 & 5 are zoo birds, the other two 3 & 6, are wild.
I was also looking at this lens when it was first announced to replace either the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G or the 200-500mm f/5.6E, but after looking at the images coming out of this lens, my interest has dropped tremendously.
Not saying it can't take sharp pictures, but most of the sharp pictures coming out of this lens is usually close-up shots that can show the details in the feathers, once it is used against distant targets, the details were so so to horrible. Both my existing lenses within the same range can do better than that even though my 80-400mm produces horrible chromatic aberration once it is use against dark subject in brightly lighted background at distance wide open, which Nikon here says is normal. Normal my foot! Just look at their own advertisement in their brochure will indicate that this lens should produce sharp pictures. Time for a class action lawsuit for false advertisement for any attorneys who needs to make some $$$.
I can also provide the pictures showing the conditions that I also shared with Nikon to make your case easier.
Picture shot under those condition will look soft and out of focus. But instead was actually caused by the multiple color images not falling into place when zoom to 100%. Magenta on the right and Cyan on the left most of the time or axial chromatic aberration.
Picture #2, #3 and #4 show some details while not so for #1 and #5.
#5 is probably due to your use of shallow depth of view and focus only on the body of the larger bird rather than on the eye of the baby bird.
hans98ko wrote:
Picture #2, #3 and #4 show some details while not so for #1 and #5.
#5 is probably due to your use of shallow depth of view and focus only on the body of the larger bird rather than on the eye of the baby bird.
# 1 Shows great detail on the head and neck of the bird, the feather detail and water droplets are there in spades but being black is more difficult to see.
100% crop
#5. Yes, I focused on the baby bird and the shallow DOF meant that the parent bird was OOF. Even if I had used f22, the parent bird would have been OOF, but then I didn't want the parent bird in focus anyway as the main subject was the baby bird.
Technology moves on eh
Was a day folks spent thousand on 8 mpx, and triple that can be had
now for a pittance.
Was a day when folks spent thousands on 500mm F4. Yep I was one of them
hans98ko wrote:
I was also looking at this lens when it was first announced to replace either the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G or the 200-500mm f/5.6E, but after looking at the images coming out of this lens, my interest has dropped tremendously.
Not saying it can't take sharp pictures, but most of the sharp pictures coming out of this lens is usually close-up shots that can show the details in the feathers, once it is used against distant targets, the details were so so to horrible. Both my existing lenses within the same range can do better than that even though my 80-400mm produces horrible chromatic aberration once it is use against dark subject in brightly lighted background at distance wide open, which Nikon here says is normal. Normal my foot! Just look at their own advertisement in their brochure will indicate that this lens should produce sharp pictures. Time for a class action lawsuit for false advertisement for any attorneys who needs to make some $$$.
I can also provide the pictures showing the conditions that I also shared with Nikon to make your case easier.
Picture shot under those condition will look soft and out of focus. But instead was actually caused by the multiple color images not falling into place when zoom to 100%. Magenta on the right and Cyan on the left most of the time or axial chromatic aberration....Show more →
The premise of this statement is simply false.
I have shot and owned two 200-400VR's, three 300mm AF-s (v1 and v2), two 200-500VR, and one 80-400VRii, and the PF ranks at the top when it comes to resolving detail at a distance. The only lens that compared well to it was my last AFS-II 300mm f/2.8. I took that lens to Bosque two years ago and shot it w/ and w/out a 1.4x in similar conditions to the images presented here. The bare 300mm f/2.8 had a similar resolution with my D500's as I am seeing w/ the PF.
Up close (within 20 meters) all of these lenses will do fine... well maybe not the 80-400VRII (I have yet to use one that had good contrast and good bokeh), but the 500PF distance acuity caused me to sell the 200-400VR. I was shooting both side-by-side... egrets in a dark pool, flying cranes, and deer... in all cases, the 500PF was sharper.
Liked are flight shots... small and distant birds. This is the type of stuff that causes the AF to miss and exhibits reduced contrast and acuity. Some are silhouettes and some are in good light... From what I have seen, the PF is as good as the 500mm f/G, but the cost is one stop of light.
regards,
bruce
hans98ko wrote:
I was also looking at this lens when it was first announced to replace either the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G or the 200-500mm f/5.6E, but after looking at the images coming out of this lens, my interest has dropped tremendously.
Not saying it can't take sharp pictures, but most of the sharp pictures coming out of this lens is usually close-up shots that can show the details in the feathers, once it is used against distant targets, the details were so so to horrible. Both my existing lenses within the same range can do better than that even though my 80-400mm produces horrible chromatic aberration once it is use against dark subject in brightly lighted background at distance wide open, which Nikon here says is normal. Normal my foot! Just look at their own advertisement in their brochure will indicate that this lens should produce sharp pictures. Time for a class action lawsuit for false advertisement for any attorneys who needs to make some $$$.
I can also provide the pictures showing the conditions that I also shared with Nikon to make your case easier.
Picture shot under those condition will look soft and out of focus. But instead was actually caused by the multiple color images not falling into place when zoom to 100%. Magenta on the right and Cyan on the left most of the time or axial chromatic aberration....Show more →
Well, everyone has their own way of evaluating lenses before purchasing. Although I appreciate folks posting their images here, I will not base my assessment solely on this, as there are many variables at play. What I usually do first, when I cannot try the lens in the field beforehand, is look at the new lens chart and compare with the chart of lenses that I have used, and then side by side comparisons, when they are available. My basis for comparison is the 200-500mm, the only lens I have used on the Nikon side of things (was with Canon up until this year, 5DSr+600II). What I have seen so far (Nikon’s MTF charts, Bruce’s comparison (OwlsEyes), and now the Lenstip evaluations, consistent with Nikon’s charts) justifies its price point compared to the 200-500mm (and the Nikon’s recent superteles). I believe it will do a much better job for my use case. Of course, YMMV.
I gather you don’t like CA. Here is the Lenstip report in that regard:
hans98ko wrote:
Picture #2, #3 and #4 show some details while not so for #1 and #5.
#5 is probably due to your use of shallow depth of view and focus only on the body of the larger bird rather than on the eye of the baby bird.
I'm not seeing what you are seeing with #1 or #5. #1 looks sharp on head, neck and Lance has now given us an even closer crop to see that.
#5 looks sharpest on the chick's eye as Lance intended....look at the rim of the eye and the tiny white (pin) feathers near the eye that appear very defined. The other sharp area is the adult's tail which is right over top of the chick. The main body of the adult is off into the OOF zone, it certainly isn't sharp as one would expect. You can also see the sharp water line runs right along the chick.
