JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.72 #6 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread | |
MedicineMan404 wrote:
But does he need the 500PF when he has the 300PF + 1.4TC or 1.7TC  ?
Everybody's needs are different, and I can't speak for his.
As far as my own, *if* I get the 500 PF, it will be at the end of my D500 (no TC), while the 300 PF would be at the end of my D850 (no TC). I can carry both and still feel no weight, thanks to the Cotton Carrier.
That said, I've never been happier with what I'm shooting: 300 PF at the end of the D500 (+TC) and a Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar macro at the end of my D850.
I do get GAS like anyone else, but (for hiking anyway), I am very satisfied with what I have: it is a very good and very light nature setup. (I carry 1-2 Zeiss primes for landscape in a pouch or a pack, depending on circumstances. Usually, the 25mm.)
The important thing to remember with the 500 PF, in comparing it to the 300 PF, is the 500 PF is it's at its sharpest wide-open, and its res figures are higher than the 300.
The 300mm is sharpest at f/5.6 also (not wide-open @ f/4), therefore, putting a TC on the 300, shooting at f/4 gives you an even lower-res, 420mm @ f/5.6. You'd have to stop down to f/5.6 on the 300mm (now f/8 with a TC) to get a 420mm f/8, which is in no way comparable to a wide-open 500mm f/5.6 operating w/o a TC.
That's a huge advantage in favor of the 500 PF.
The bad news is the 500mm PF is twice the weight of the 300 PF, but at only 1460 g is still hand-holdable for a long time.
The 500 PF also doesn't have the close-focus of the 300 PF, nor the reproduction ratio, which are important to me.
If I add the 500 PF, and remove the 300 PF + TC from my D500, to replace it with the 500 PF (no TC), I will enjoy better image quality on the long-end, while still not needing a tripod or being forced to carry a truly heavy lens. If I instead put the 300 PF at the end of my D850, no it's not as good a lens as my Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar macro, resolution-wise, but it *is* lighter, more athletic (has AF), as well as having VR. (I would have to carry the macro in a pouch to make this replacement, and use it only when needed.)
Using a bare 300mm on the D850 would enable the image quality to be at its uttermost, for that lens. As a pure macro lens, it will never equal the CV 125, but as an athletic close-up lens, for larger insects (butterflies, dragonfiles, and even close hummingbirds), the 300 PF blows the Voigtlander macro out of the water. Why? Because the absolute resolution of the MF macro lens is irrelevant if you can't nail focus on a moving target. So here the AF speed of the 300 PF + the VR trumps everything, and the image quality bare, with a D850, is excellent.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
In the end, yes, the 300 + TCs can produce excellent images ... and can get me to a very good ~630mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC + D500 ... or a decent ~900mm f/8 equivalent with the 2xTC + so I don't "need" the 500 PF.
However, the 500 PF would give me a stellar ~750mm f/5.6 equivalent with the D500, bare, and a very good ~ 1050mm f/8 equivalent with the 1.4 TC added. (I doubt I'll use the 2x on the 500 PF.)
Meanwhile, the image quality of my 300 mm will be enhanced by removing the TC altogether and putting it on the D850.
All that said, I really think I will forego TCs altogether just use both lenses bare, on their respective cameras, to enjoy each performing at their best ... as I continue to talk myself into buying this lens 
|
