elkhornsun wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Keep us in the loop about the 600 results. When I first bought my D850 to add to my D500 I did comparisons of a staged setup in the backyard which included a deceased bird (window hit) to replicate the kind of subjects I shoot. I was mainly doing it to test the ISO performance between the two cameras once you cropped the D850 down into the DX frame. My findings mirrored with the DR data shows in that the D500 is just the slightest bit cleaner but basically a tie. I wasn't specifically evaluating sharpness with a test chart but the rendering of the bird's feathers looked identical between the two images. I'm going to go see if I can dig up those shots.
Lots of GAS thinking here. Before you blow 4K for no GOOD reason, keep in mind that the 200-500 delivers the same thing, plus you get a zoom! (Okay, so I live in the US where subject distances rarely exceed 30 m.)
But when you do occasionally face astronomical distances - as I did with this young roebuck in Germany - it gets the job done too!
D500, f/6.3, 1/640, 460 mm, ISO 1600 (56 m) Rehbock by Christian Hunold, on Flickr
Christian H wrote:
Lots of GAS thinking here. Before you blow 4K for no GOOD reason, keep in mind that the 200-500 delivers the same thing, plus you get a zoom!
"Same thing"? Evidence? Evidence isn't found in web-sized images. If web-sized image comparisons are your MO, not one of your images shows the same detail I've seen in some 500 PF images both on the web and from personal use. I can't imagine anyone who hasn't used both lenses extensively can say they are the "same thing".
"No GOOD reason" (compared to the 200-500)? Better build, lighter, small, faster AF, sharper, takes TC's better...
Since picking up my 500 PF I haven't taken my 200-500 out of the bag.
Does anyone know if the performance drop of using a 2x teleconverter is because of the teleconverter itself or the extra stop of light you lose with that over a 1.4x? For instance, I have a Canon 400 DO so the 500 5.6 PF is obviously piquing my interest. What I'm wondering is with a 1.4x teleconverter on the 500mm vs a 2x on the 400mm and both at f/8, would the 2x still perform worse than the 1.4x or would they (in theory) perform equally? I've never actually thought about this scenario until now, I've just always thought "2x is worse than 1.4x".
Tony5787 wrote:
Does anyone know if the performance drop of using a 2x teleconverter is because of the teleconverter itself or the extra stop of light you lose with that over a 1.4x? For instance, I have a Canon 400 DO so the 500 5.6 PF is obviously piquing my interest. What I'm wondering is with a 1.4x teleconverter on the 500mm vs a 2x on the 400mm and both at f/8, would the 2x still perform worse than the 1.4x or would they (in theory) perform equally? I've never actually thought about this scenario until now, I've just always thought "2x is worse than 1.4x"....Show more →
Good question.
I can only add that in my Sony system the 2.0TC performs better than my 1.4TC on the FE100-400GM. I just think my 1.4 is sub par.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Good question.
I can only add that in my Sony system the 2.0TC performs better than my 1.4TC on the FE100-400GM. I just think my 1.4 is sub par.
I would get a new 1.4TC....mine is flawless...although the 2x is also....
Tony5787 wrote:
Does anyone know if the performance drop of using a 2x teleconverter is because of the teleconverter itself or the extra stop of light you lose with that over a 1.4x? For instance, I have a Canon 400 DO so the 500 5.6 PF is obviously piquing my interest. What I'm wondering is with a 1.4x teleconverter on the 500mm vs a 2x on the 400mm and both at f/8, would the 2x still perform worse than the 1.4x or would they (in theory) perform equally? I've never actually thought about this scenario until now, I've just always thought "2x is worse than 1.4x"....Show more →
I think it is a combination of both but I lean more towards it being the f-stop you start at and subsequently end up at.
My 2xTC on my 300/2.8 giving me 600/5.6 was very similar in final results as my 1.4TC on my 400DOII at 560/5.6. However, on the Nikon side of things even though I think their 2xTC is better than most of the internet makes it out to be, it isn't up to the Canon one and especially not the Sony one which is by far the best.
As far as comparing a Canon 2x on 400DOII and a Nikon 1.4 on 500PF, there are so many variables in that equation including AF variables that I have no idea. I thought the 400DOII/2x was excellent but needed a 1DX2 or 5D4 with full AF support to make it sing. It also is amazing adapted to the A9.
Christian H wrote:
Lots of GAS thinking here. Before you blow 4K for no GOOD reason, keep in mind that the 200-500 delivers the same thing, plus you get a zoom! (Okay, so I live in the US where subject distances rarely exceed 30 m.)
No doubt the 200-500mm deliver in spades.
My issue with the 200-500mm ( truly a gift to photographers from Nikon) is the weight=5 pounds!!
Now for you younger strutting types 5 pounds ain't a thing eh
Heck I'm having problems shouldering the 400DOii AND I want to stay off the couch!
The 500PF will give me (hopefully) a few more years before I'm forced into mFT
Christian H wrote:
Lots of GAS thinking here. Before you blow 4K for no GOOD reason, keep in mind that the 200-500 delivers the same thing, plus you get a zoom! (Okay, so I live in the US where subject distances rarely exceed 30 m.)
I don’t really get the point in posting something like this, we all know about the 200-500 but some people are inevitably going to spend $4k on this lens because they prefer primes over zooms, value better build quality, lighter weight and more compact size, etc. If you’re fine with the 200-500 great, save yourself some money and stick with what you have. As long as Nikon is selling this lens, some people are going to buy it.
Christian H wrote:
Lots of GAS thinking here. Before you blow 4K for no GOOD reason, keep in mind that the 200-500 delivers the same thing, plus you get a zoom! (Okay, so I live in the US where subject distances rarely exceed 30 m.)
...
I do find it interesting that you are making the economic argument here. If I recall, you have a 500mm f/4G and 200-400mm f/G as well as the 200-500E.
Since your 200-500E performs so well, why keep your other two overlapping optics. Is it really worth the extra $10,000 (+) for one extra stop of light?
I would argue that your success with the 200-500 is more related to your skill as a photographer than anything else. Your pictures are great, but like you, others might want to own a premium quality prime telephoto that offers some advantages over the three optics mentioned. First, the PF is extremely light and portable. For an older person or someone with skeletal / muscular issues, this lens can keep them in the "game." Alternatively, for someone like me, the PF is small and light enough that it is very suitable for long hikes, backpacking, and flights on smaller regional aircraft.
Finally, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the 500mm PF is a sharper and faster focusing lens than the 200-500VR. It's capabilities approach Nikon's newest super FLE series telephoto lenses. I am not the only one who has made these assertions, though I do acknowledge that I likely have "ownership bias." This, of course, is something we all tend to experience from time to time, and is the reason why I tried to run and share my relatively controlled test comparing the 500PF to the 200-500 and 200-400mm lenses.
Finally, were one to have a limited budget and could afford only one good lens with a good wildlife camera, I would recommend the 200-500 over the 500mm PF for its cost savings and flexibility... fortunately, I can afford to own both as well as other lenses.
Tony5787 wrote:
I don’t really get the point in posting something like this, we all know about the 200-500 but some people are inevitably going to spend $4k on this lens because they prefer primes over zooms, value better build quality, lighter weight and more compact size, etc. If you’re fine with the 200-500 great, save yourself some money and stick with what you have. As long as Nikon is selling this lens, some people are going to buy it.
Right. The weight difference between 1.4kg and 2.3 kg is noticeable and when handling the lens for a longer time, when walking around with it in the woods, the lighter lens will give a more pleasant experience, and at least with my arms the 200-500 at 500mm was not a good hand-holding experience, leading to somewhat random framings (on tripod, better results). I don't have first-hand experience with the 500 PF but side by side comparisons presented by others already have confirmed what Nikon's MTFs show i.e. the prime gives images with superior definition. These two factors justify the higher asking price. The stiff and slow-to-operate zoom ring in the 200-500 makes it very unappealing to me. In a zoom, I expect quick access to focal lengths that are in its range; with the 200-500 in winter conditions I was worried turning the zoom ring would damage the bayonet, it was so stiff. And at 500mm the sharpness declined compared to shorter focal lengths; my view is that a telezoom should give its best quality at maximum focal length.
There has been a gap in the Nikon telephoto lineup between the very high-end primes and the intermediate level lenses (such as 200-500, 80-400, 300/4). The older 200-400/4 was priced at around 5000-7000€, but with the new version at 12000€, the gap has reopened, and the 500 PF nicely fills in at 4000€. I think this is important because a large number of people want better quality than the 1300-2700€ lenses give, but can't pay 12000€. The supreme convenience of the light weight of the PF primes (again my experience is with the 300 PF not yet the 500 PF) makes them very attractive to someone who wants to travel or hike with a long lens, or wants to photograph active subjects that move very quickly (in sufficient light).
For me the main thing holding me back from purchasing the 500/5.6 PF is the maximum aperture, as f/5.6 is a bit limiting especially in wintertime in my country, and also in the summer late evenings in arctic summer light, a f/4 is better than f/5.6 and f/2.8 better than f/4. But those faster long lenses are expensive and are not as convenient to operate.
Since your 200-500E performs so well, why keep your other two overlapping optics. Is it really worth the extra $10,000 (+) for one extra stop of light?
Absolutely. 90% of our shooting happens at dawn and dusk, and the background separation is to die for. And as you know, the OOF rendering of the 200-400 is buttery soft, unparalleled by any zoom (except the new 180-400). It remains Jen's favorite lens for shooting wild horses, and I use it for deer and hawks all the time. I think a big part of why we like it so much is that it doesn't give you that crispy-crunchy look, even with the unforgivingly sharp new sensors.
That said, once the sun is up there's no meaningful difference in "sharpness" between the two zooms. (It's just that we couldn't do much of what we do without f/4.)
It's impossible to evaluate sharpness from images where only 2% of the image detail (in area) is shown. The 200-500 has good image quality up to around 400mm, but at 500mm it falls noticeably (and in corners it isn't sharp even at shorter focal lengths stopped down).
However, this thread is about a 500mm lens, not 200, 300, or 400mm lenses; generally if people are interested in buying a 500, they know that shorter lenses won't suffice.
Charles Loy wrote:
All this fun for you guys. All I get is an email telling me to keep waiting, still on back order.
Just got an email back from my Canadian store....he said don't hold your breathe He think that only 2 copies of the lens were delivered FOR ALL OF CANADA so far ....no new shipment last week when the US got one. He has 10 on his list and he is just one of many, many popular Canadian retailers....NPS also has priority.... Nikon .
First, I think we will all agree that most images that are less than sharp, can be attributed to technique that is less than perfect. I did not say poor technique. After all that is said about gear, it comes down to the quality of technique at the instant the shutter was released.
Second, when I am shooting wildlife subjects with a supertelephoto lenses, I simply don’t care about the resolving power of a lens in its corners.
Third, I have not noticed any difference in how my 200-500 zooms in very cold weather vs. summer months. And I love shooting in cold winter weather, on the north Atlantic. Nature has a story in it!
Fourth, IMO, the 200-500 *is* sharp at 500mm. Ok, it is true that most of my 200-500 images taken at 500mm are less sharp than this one. So, it would appear that it is a tad softer at the long end. But then, there is this image, taken at 500mm. Most images that are less than sharp, can be attributed to technique that was less than perfect.
Finally, I am one of the people who pre-ordered the 500 5.6. And whenever it comes , I will test it and I will decide if it is as sharp or sharper than my 200-500.
Right now, I'm still liking my 200-500. It does most of what I want, though it is a little slow to AF in some situations.
He think that only 2 copies of the lens were delivered FOR ALL OF CANADA so far 
....no new shipment last week when the US got one. He has 10 on his list and he is just one of many, many popular Canadian retailers....NPS also has priority....
Nikon 
, I will test it and I will decide if it is as sharp or sharper than my 200-500. 
