MedicineMan404 wrote:
Many go to Bosque for Sandhills or Snow Geese. I was excited to go because I'd never imaged a NoH (Northern Harrier). E-bird had reported 4-6 of them in the immediate Bosque del Apache area...so I had hope!
I didn't expect to see a NoH dining on a Snow Goose though...doubtful the NoH took the goose, probably an eagle did the initial hit.
The dining NoH was approx 50 yards away and a big water filled canal preventing me from getting any further.
Is this background bokeh typical of the 500PF + 1.4x TC?
I don't think the above is representative of the lens' bokeh, under normal conditions.
As you know, in my 300 PF ~ Bizarre Bokeh thread, it's well-documented that certain lighting conditions can challenge the Phase Fresnel (PF) technology. Whether this is good or bad, I suppose, depends on the conditions (as well as taste of the viewer).
I do know that, normally, with my 300 PF, I can get bokeh-licious results when I shoot in good light ... and with good backgrounds. Most often, bokeh is more dependent on light selection (time of day we shoot) + backgrounds, as well as shooting "wide-open" in general, than it has to do with the lens ... although some lenses do a better job than others.
That said, often we can see cool things in sub-optimal light, and with sub-optimal backgrounds, but it's still fun to capture these cool subjects anyway
I don't think so but it can do that at times. If you are primarily concerned with bokeh, PF may not be the best choice, depending on how much you can control the surroundings.
But it's a very sharp lens that gives some unique opportunities and usually the out of focus areas are ok / can be managed.
Is this background bokeh typical of the 500PF + 1.4x TC?
No bokeh for this hawk
About 1/4 mile from the house.
Shot first time with 1/1250...a touch soft. Upped the shutter to 1/2000
for this shot which I think is better.
I have to remind myself to increase shutter for the crop sensor.
Nikon D500
500.0 mm f/5.6
ƒ/8.0 700.0 mm 1/2000 360
Distance for Dora, about 40 yards. I was that much from the base of the tree. The RTH was 70 feet up, if you
want to do the geometry
hey guy's went back to see the flamingo's again hoping to see some action this time.. I got lucky after a few hours the sun broke trough and a second groep landed in. these pic is shot at 850mm on a D500
I would think most go to Bosque del Apache for geese and cranes.
I went hoping for a Harrier.
I'd already imaged one dining on Snow Goose but I wanted one in flight.
They were not hard to find but they would never get close enough to suit me.
This is the best I could do.
Nikon D500
500.0 mm f/5.6
ƒ/8.0 700.0 mm 1/2500 360
Just a few from today... headed out with Tamy (my wife) in search of Great Gray Owls on Christmas Day. While we had a fleeting view of a bobcat w/ snowshoe hare in mouth, the owls eluded us. As a consolation prize, we managed to spend a bit of quality time with some deer and some north woods birds.
All pictures where with the 500PF and D500 w/ minimal crops.
Some nice shots guys , I can’t quite stretch to a 500mm f4e FL so thinking of either the 500mm PF’s or a second hand 500mm f4 VR to use with my D500 and D850.
How’s the focus and IQ of the 500mm PF + TC-14e iii compare against a bare 200-500 ?
7 pounds or 3.2 pounds. It was a no-brainer for me
Seriously I can't answer your question having never own any other Nikon except the 300PF.
From what I've seen of Nikkor lenses you can't go wrong with any of those you listed. Just
go with either your heart or wallet, or in my case your joints. Great images can be had with
any of them.
multibit wrote:
Some nice shots guys , I can’t quite stretch to a 500mm f4e FL so thinking of either the 500mm PF’s or a second hand 500mm f4 VR to use with my D500 and D850.
How’s the focus and IQ of the 500mm PF + TC-14e iii compare against a bare 200-500 ?
I know that others will disagree, but if you shoot in low contrast light (see just about all of my photos) and are planning on using the 500PF with a converter more than 25% of the time, I'd buy a 500mm f/4. My 500PF has been sharp bare (though I can't figure out the best resolution to demonstrate that here), but AF has struggled under some conditions (for example... the pair of does between trees ^). If AF struggles with soft and low contrast light, it will have even greater difficulties when a 1.4x is attached.
I have seen a lot of nice pictures here with the 500PF + 1.4x, but I do not know anything about the keeper rate. In addition, you will need to be extra careful about looking for distracting backgrounds... the additional depth of filed will increase the background clutter.
Can't argue with a pro like Bruce, I've never made a penny on photography plus I've only been shooting Nikon for maybe 4 months. Heck the 500PF is my second Nikkor; I bought the 300PF waiting out the 500PF release.
Personally I don't fret over the background at all. Like the old adage, expose for the subject, I just concentrate on the target--I'll deal with the background later
Luckily I still shoot 400DOii with an a9 so I'm probably more forgiving of diffractive tech
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Another from Bosque, forgot to mention also with the 1.4TCiii
Here's the EXIF for those who care
Nikon D500
500.0 mm f/5.6
ƒ/8.0 700.0 mm 1/2500 1000
Thanks Randy.
I've mentioned before that at Bosque if I hadn't had the TC I'd come home with little from the Nikkor.
It worked out OK I think, the D500 with the 500PF+1.4TCiii for the long distance stuff and the Sony 100-400mm for the close to mid-distance targets.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Personally I don't fret over the background at all. Like the old adage, expose for the subject, I just concentrate on the target--I'll deal with the background later
Luckily I still shoot 400DOii with an a9 so I'm probably more forgiving of diffractive tech
I'm personally turned off by the backgrounds I'm seeing in the photos made with the 500PF+1.4x TCIII. Maybe it's just me but I feel like backgrounds are a part of the image and can either enhance or distract from the primary subject.
I'm not seeing any of the distracting background bokeh problems in the photos made without the TC so I'll skip the 1.4x TCIII.
telyt wrote:
I'm personally turned off by the backgrounds I'm seeing in the photos made with the 500PF+1.4x TCIII. Maybe it's just me but I feel like backgrounds are a part of the image and can either enhance or distract from the primary subject.
I'm not seeing any of the distracting background bokeh problems in the photos made without the TC so I'll skip the 1.4x TCIII.
This is the reason that I am not using a teleconverter. When shooting the 500PF @ f/5.6 on my D500, the depth of field already appears as if the lens were shot w a D5 at f/8... any background foliage with highlights will compete with the subject.
Up until now, I have been using my 500PF w/ a D500 at f/5.6 for most of my work... I am going to explore using the lens with my Z6 for most of my shooting that does not require fast AF tracking (birds in flight). If I had a D5, I'd probably mate the PF to that camera. Moving my body to maintain clean backgrounds has become increasingly important practice for me whenever I use with the lens.
It sounds like the type of approach I have always taken when using my zoom lenses for wildlife. I have to be mindful of my backgrounds, the angle I'm shooting from etc. because I've never had the subject isolation you get from one of the f/4 super telephoto lenses.
OwlsEyes wrote:
This is the reason that I am not using a teleconverter. When shooting the 500PF @ f/5.6 on my D500, the depth of field already appears as if the lens were shot w a D5 at f/8... any background foliage with highlights will compete with the subject.
Up until now, I have been using my 500PF w/ a D500 at f/5.6 for most of my work... I am going to explore using the lens with my Z6 for most of my shooting that does not require fast AF tracking (birds in flight). If I had a D5, I'd probably mate the PF to that camera. Moving my body to maintain clean backgrounds has become increasingly important practice for me whenever I use with the lens.
It's not as much the DOF for me, it's more the double-edged effect with higher-contrast out-of-focus objects. It's a mild form of the donut effect of a mirror lens.
telyt wrote:
I'm personally turned off by the backgrounds I'm seeing in the photos made with the 500PF+1.4x TCIII. Maybe it's just me but I feel like backgrounds are a part of the image and can either enhance or distract from the primary subject.
I'm not seeing any of the distracting background bokeh problems in the photos made without the TC so I'll skip the 1.4x TCIII.
I personally have always preferred to shoot without TCs (even when I had a 600mmII), and I almost always regretted using a TC the few times I did. I always found that the gain was minimal with a high density sensor camera. So that will not change when I get the 500mm PF. I will argue, however, that whatever the lens, it is possible to get good results with TCs (as many photographers have shown) if you take extra precautions when choosing your position (when you can). But then again, it is all a matter of distances (between the photographer and subject, and subject and background).
