The in flight hit rate was so, so but it was dreary, the ducks were flying mostly straight at us so that is a challenge.
Otherwise though, the IQ looks impressive. The last image is with 1.7TCII on and a few with the 1.4TCIII.
Other findings:
I found no VR issues in the "problem" range. I have had issues with my 300PF with that. The nice thing I found about the 500PF vs 300PF is that with the extra weight I can hold it more steady....I always have a harder time holding the 300PF steady because it is so light (and that may be all the "VR" issues are in my case).
Bare lens AF was everything I had expected. No concerns with that. Similar to 300PF and 500E. Much faster than 200-500. With 1.4TC I could use AF points all around the frame without too much trouble as long as I was in Group or D25 and not relying on a single point. With 1.7TC I needed to stay more within the centre points. With 2xTC it did focus but had some difficulties off and on....needed a very good contrast target (ie male hooded merganser) to work.
IQ wide open is excellent, no need to stop down as I found I did on the 200-500 @500mm where f/7.1 was the sweet spot. That buys me 2/3 stop over that lens when wanting max sharpness.
I haven't run MFA yet....I can see in most of my 1.7TC shots that it is front focusing which is typical of that TC on all my other lenses....same with the 2xTC. I will dial the 1.7 in soon and probably won't ever use the 2x anyways.
arbitrage wrote:
Other findings:
I found no VR issues in the "problem" range. I have had issues with my 300PF with that. The nice thing I found about the 500PF vs 300PF is that with the extra weight I can hold it more steady.... I always have a harder time holding the 300PF steady because it is so light (and that may be all the "VR" issues are in my case).
Interesting observation.
When I replaced my heavy, 6.5 lb., 300mm f/2.8 with the light, 1.6 lb, 300 f/4 PF, I found myself "over compensating" with all my movements ... as the weight of the 300 PF was almost non-existent, compared to what I was used to.
arbitrage wrote:
Bare lens AF was everything I had expected. No concerns with that. Similar to 300PF and 500E. Much faster than 200-500. With 1.4TC I could use AF points all around the frame without too much trouble as long as I was in Group or D25 and not relying on a single point. With 1.7TC I needed to stay more within the centre points. With 2xTC it did focus but had some difficulties off and on....needed a very good contrast target (ie male hooded merganser) to work.
I won't go passed the 1.4x on this one either, when I get my own, in the next month or so.
Will try to leave it bare as much as possible. 300 PF will go on my D850.
arbitrage wrote:
IQ wide open is excellent, no need to stop down as I found I did on the 200-500 @500mm@ where f/7.1 was the sweet spot. That buys me 2/3 stop over that lens when wanting max sharpness.
This is precisely the most important aspect of this lens (or one of them), namely, that it is at its sharpestwide open. This helps justify the f/5.6 minimum aperture, whereas almost all other primes (including the 300 PF) need to be "stopped down" to achieve maximum sharpness.
The fact that the 500 PF leads-off with max sharpness wide-open increases its value tremendously IMO. (In other words, if it was soft wide-open, but good at f/8, it would be useless.)
arbitrage wrote:
I haven't run MFA yet....I can see in most of my 1.7TC shots that it is front focusing which is typical of that TC on all my other lenses....same with the 2xTC. I will dial the 1.7 in soon and probably won't ever use the 2x anyways.
My own plan is to use this lens, wide-open on the D500, and to use the 300 PF, wide-open on the D850, for a one-two punch of options. May use the 1.4x on the 500 PF (for equiv. ~1050mm f/8) ... and the 2x on the 300 + D850 (for equiv. ~600 f/8), but that's it.
Hi arbitrage - I think I am being particularly dense here ! Are you saying you got autofocus to work with a 1.7TC attached on a D500 ? I thought F8 was the limit for autofocus ?
Cheers
PS. Here in the UK I have no idea when my pre-order for this lens will be fulfilled. I emailed the CEO of Nikon UK in frustration - and even got a reply - but that didn't throw any light on the resolution !
Raptorash wrote:
Hi arbitrage - I think I am being particularly dense here ! Are you saying you got autofocus to work with a 1.7TC attached on a D500 ? I thought F8 was the limit for autofocus ?
Cheers
PS. Here in the UK I have no idea when my pre-order for this lens will be fulfilled. I emailed the CEO of Nikon UK in frustration - and even got a reply - but that didn't throw any light on the resolution !
Nikon D500 and D850 and D5 (I have no idea about other bodies) will keep trying to focus. So yes AF works at f/9.5 and decently well for birds floating or perched. With the 2xTC it also tried to AF and it did achieve AF on a perched merganser a couple times....the f/11 was providing so little light that the VF was very dark and the AF sensors were obviously getting very little light to work with. I'll try the 2x again once I have a sunny day and see how it does with maximum light.
Nikon also allows the camera to try to AF with points that aren't officially supported at f/8 (which is nice as Canon just totally shuts down the points they don't support). The only thing Nikon disables above f/5.6 is the 3D and Auto AF modes....otherwise they at least let you try to AF with whatever points you want.
I wonder if the current unusual interest in the 500mm PF will inspire some workarounds.
Also,is there any other technology providing low weight/ good optics and worthy of consideration?.
Nothing available yet that works for this kind of big lenses; one of the technologies with potential is metamaterials resulting in lenses with negative refractive index. This could produce DSLR/ILC lenses that are much shorter and lighter. However, the technology doesn't work for full spectrum visible light yet, and it might never get there. But advancements over the last few years have been impressive.
Ultimately long tele PF/DO lenses could be cheaper than similar lenses without the technology. Production technology is still maturing, Canon made a big jump in quality going from first to second generation of DO, Nikon apparently made a significant improvement in production cost, it all takes time ...
---------------------------------------------
ibbo wrote:
Hugely impressed by the quality of this lens, with and without the TC-14E III. The only subject that was clearly below par was a series of test shots of the full moon, which look decidedly soft. I guess that was to be expected, given the caveats about shooting into bright lights with a Fresnel lens.
Did anyone else notice that this lens in made in China - unlike my other Nikon big glass which is all manufactured in Japan? Not that it matters....
Just asking ... are you experienced with taking moonshots and all the problems that can blur the image (atmospheric distortions, AF problems due to unusual (very light/dark) subject and relatively low light levels even when using Liveview focusing, not-so-good support etc.)? I would be surprised if the PF element really softens the image. I guess some visible "halo" effect could occur when the moon is a relatively small part of the frame and depending on if it is centered in the viewfinder.
Shot on 10/24 shortly after getting the lens. No problems getting excellent crater detail along the lunar limb with the D500 + 500 PF (with some heavy cropping).
40Driggs wrote:
I was leaning towards the 500 f/4 camp, but this lens seems to really be delivering and the size and weight are amazing.
Yes, it is a great option, but one of the biggest advantages with the f/4 versions (Nikon or Canon) is that they will behave much better with extenders, especially extenders over 1.4x
Colin F wrote:
Yes, it is a great option, but one of the biggest advantages with the f/4 versions (Nikon or Canon) is that they will behave much better with extenders, especially extenders over 1.4x
As Steve Perry said near the end of his review, it's not a case of either/or, but they are complimentary, kinda like the Canon 100-400 II - another tool with advantages & disadvantages.
Colin F wrote:
As Steve Perry said near the end of his review, it's not a case of either/or, but they are complimentary, kinda like the Canon 100-400 II - another tool with advantages & disadvantages.
Yes, but I think in Steve's case because he is comparing a 600/4 to the 500/5.6 I can see need for both more easily. What I'm dealing with is deciding do I need two 500mm lenses one f-stop apart. And, if I don't, which one do I really need (or want)? But lucky you, you will get to hear me deliberate that in person every weekend
Raptorash wrote:
PS. Here in the UK I have no idea when my pre-order for this lens will be fulfilled. I emailed the CEO of Nikon UK in frustration - and even got a reply - but that didn't throw any light on the resolution !
No need to wait. I live in London, and got tired of waiting for my very early order. I went on Amazon and found plenty for sale in Germany. I got one straight away from Foto Koester in Munster for £100 less than UK list price, and it arrived in three days, with a 5 year warranty.
AvianScott wrote:
Shot on 10/24 shortly after getting the lens. No problems getting excellent crater detail along the lunar limb with the D500 + 500 PF (with some heavy cropping).
I'm getting similar results, which I don't class as being as sharp as other shots I'm getting. Hard to be sure with images on the web, though.
DO101 wrote:
To me it seems it would have been a worthy track for lens makers to pursue. The "bigger is better" notion ruled back then,I guess, as opposed to the lighter and "portable " trend of today.
It was not a worthy track to pursue because of the much higher cost to produce such prime lenses. PF zooms would require even more expensive production costs and unreasonable prices for the consumer. As pointed out, the first version of the Canon 400 DO was not only expensive, but not considered that great for those who bought that lens.
If you really want a light all-in-one package, go for an Olympus EM1 MkII with a Panasonic/Leica 100-400
ibbo wrote:
No need to wait. I live in London, and got tired of waiting for my very early order. I went on Amazon and found plenty for sale in Germany. I got one straight away from Foto Koester in Munster for £100 less than UK list price, and it arrived in three days, with a 5 year warranty.
But buy now before Brexit kicks in!
Same prices and widely available overhere in Belgium or the Netherlands.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, it is a great option, but one of the biggest advantages with the f/4 versions (Nikon or Canon) is that they will behave much better with extenders, especially extenders over 1.4x
For those working with APS-C, maybe future sensors with "built-in TC" like the rumored Sony 36MP sensor should do the job. Although admittedly this only works for TC equivalent up to 1.4x or so ...
---------------------------------------------
ibbo wrote:
I'm getting similar results, which I don't class as being as sharp as other shots I'm getting. Hard to be sure with images on the web, though.
Yes, I don't see anything really wrong with the images from AvianScott, but impossible to judge from web images, especially if you cannot compare to images taken in the exact same conditions with another lens with known IQ. Quality of my moon shots varies strongly due to conditions, mostly outside my control. Even if there is a difference in IQ, it will take time before we know why (camera/lens support, IS, focusing method/accuracy, less sharp at infinity, quality loss specifically due to PF element?).
BTW: images taken around half moon are far more telling for fine detail on moon shots.
