ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.64 #15 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread | |
bs kite wrote:
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.
Without doubt shooting technique influences results; my comments on the 200-500's optical quality are mainly based on results obtained using a tripod (4-series Gitzo systematice with Z1 head), Kirk two-point support, EFCS and cable release, live view AF and a static subject (architectural and landscape subjects). The 200-500 is very good within 200mm and 400mm but outside of the central DX area the zoom becomes noticeably softer whereas the 300 PF holds up better outside of the DX area. At 500mm results are a bit less sharp than at shorter focal lengths, these observations were made in A4 size prints, reflecting my typical use, not some huge magnification.
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.
I use long lenses also for architectural and landscape photography. In wildlife photography, sometimes you have a frame-filling image where the subject's head is near the edge of the frame, or there could be multiple animals some of which are outside of the center area. I'm not suggesting the 200-500's corner sharpness is a major issue but it is an area where primes do better and in some situations it may have an influence on the resulting image quality, depending on subject matter and whether you use FX or DX.
I think overall the 200-500 yields pleasing images and I don't fault it for that, but suggesting that 500mm primes (such as the 500 PF) are worthless because the 200-500 exists, is taking it too far.
Fourth, IMO, the 200-500 *is* sharp at 500mm.
What I require for a lens that I consider acceptably sharp is that I am happy with an A4 size print and don't feel it is a little fuzzy (that's about 4000 pixels along the long dimension). All the tests that I've seen on the 200-500 align with my observations, Lenstip, photographylife, ephotozine, cameralabs etc.
So, it would appear that it is a tad softer at the long end.
So you basically agree.
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.
It looks like it's taken in direct sun (or lightly diffused sun). Bright light can help use a fast shutter speed, lower ISO etc. which tend to make it easier to obtain sharp results. However, for me, a lot of the time I'm shooting in dim light, in November and December we may get only a few hours of sunlight in a month, and also I like to photograph animals in the summer evening light which can lead to ISO 6400-25600. These conditions can also lead to moody images rather than the bright, post-card like bright sun. I see regularly good results from the 200-500 in dimmer than bright sun conditions but perhaps not quite as low light as I sometimes shoot in. I cannot buy a 400/2.8 so there has to be some other solution.
With the AF-S 80-400, I had great deal of difficulty obtaining sharp landscape and architectural images on tripod in the wintertime, as it seemed particularly sensitive to wind and shutter shock. I only got really sharp results in very bright light, such as when the sun is out. The 200-500 doesn't have this problem, though, as the mechanical stability of the lens is very good. However, the 80-400 had more punch in terms of contrast and colour saturation when shooting into the light than the 200-500 and the zoom was light and fast to operate. The 200-500 is sharper and doesn't wobble. I would ideally like a lens that combines the best characteristics of both of these two lenses.
To me the 500 PF is appealing because it fits in an acceptable price range for me, and appears to be sharpest wide open (e.g. Lenstip) which makes it easier to work in lower light as one doesn't have to stop down to control the aberrations. Also it is light weight which means one doesn't have to suffer too much in carrying it. However, if there is some compromise with it shooting in harsh winter conditions, I would want to know about it before buying, as some of my best images are shot in temperatures around -20 C.
|
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 
