With the discussion about 500PF/1.4TC bokeh, I was culling out shots and before deleting this one, I thought to post it as another data point in the bokeh question. I need to do more shooting with the lens/tc to come to any bokeh conclusions.
It is not clear if the adverse out of focus effect is due to long distance or the TC's optical effect in itself. I find back bokeh to be OK with the 500 PF especially if the subject is reasonably close but I have had some disagreeable front bokeh, so I have to take especialy care to make sure the line of sight is clear.
I guess it would be possible to investigate what effect the TC has on bokeh when compared with cropping without TC.
I never really liked the results from use of a TC with any of my lenses. Conditions at this time of year in my geographical location are also poorly suited to the use of a TC.
I've been out testing this very thing, I shot the same subject from the same distance with and without the TC1.4III and the bokeh looked the same, really no difference in fact with the TC seemed to have a bit more background blur, I will post some pics later when I get back to my main computer but I'm really loving this lens after coming from a Sigma 150-600 S.
fpoet wrote:
.... But then again, it is all a matter of distances (between the photographer and subject, and subject and background).
Cheers
It's not entirely a matter of distances. Certainly awareness of these distances and their effects can be important but also the optical properties of the lens is another factor. A lens that produces a blur circle with brighter rims than center will produce harsher background blur than if the blur circle has even light distribution or brighter central than edge light distribution. Control of spherical aberration is a big factor in the light distribution of the blur circle.
I finally got out to do the kind of shooting that would really tell me how this lens would perform.
I went to one of my favorite Bald Eagle spots on a river in the Catskill mountains. The Eagles were there most of the day and were feeding actively. This particular spot is known for low light conditions, very busy backgrounds and plenty of Eagles. the lens performed incredibly well with the backgrounds. I'm not a technical geek and could care less about splitting technical hairs.
All I know is...... the lens performed incredibly well in some horrendously low light.
Tough shooting today at my swan spot... another cloudy day, cold-cold (10 deg F / -12 deg C), and very little swan action.
I'm hoping for more birds and better conditions as time progresses, but here three that I liked from my outing... note, the square crop was a save, as I could not keep the wings completely in the frame.
RandyR wrote:
I need a longer foot to use as a handle as much as an Arca Swiss connection
Has anyone compared the Nikon foot to RRS,Wimberley and Kirk
Thanks
Randy,
I am using the Hejnar foot and love the way it fits the collar: http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/product-p/h129-asterisk-.htm
If you need a longer foot, the newer RRS LCF-12 fits the 500PF and it is longer than the Hejnar... I pulled it from my 200-500 to see how well it fit, but decided to buy the Hejnar because of the way it integrates semi-permanently to the 500PF collar.
I am using the Hejnar foot and love the way it fits the collar: http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/product-p/h129-asterisk-.htm
If you need a longer foot, the newer RRS LCF-12 fits the 500PF and it is longer than the Hejnar... I pulled it from my 200-500 to see how well it fit, but decided to buy the Hejnar because of the way it integrates semi-permanently to the 500PF collar.
cheers,
bruce
thanks Bruce
does that one just screw on and stay on ?
Lance B wrote:
I am using the RRS replacement foot, which is the same as the RRS foot for the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR. It is excellent and has extra length.
an extra inch on the foot will make it a usable handle, thanks
Checking the specs on henjar and rrs it seems the RRS 200-500 foot is 4.3” and the Henjar 500 PF is 4.3”. The RRS 500PF one is 4.2”.
If you don’t need to swap the foot on and off very often then the Henjar is more secure with a screwed in bolt and is considerably less expensive. If you like the convienence of quickly removing the foot then the RRS is a good option.
Unlike reports from Steve and others about the stock foot mechanism loosening, mine is rock solid when the screw is tightened and I can’t see how it would loosen enough to allow the quick release to release the foot.
RandyR wrote:
thanks Bruce
does that one just screw on and stay on ?
Yes... the Hejnar foot is machined to fit tightly onto the collar and then an Allen wrench is used to lock the foot in place. I really like the way it works and looks.
arbitrage wrote:
Checking the specs on henjar and rrs it seems the RRS 200-500 foot is 4.3” and the Henjar 500 PF is 4.3”. The RRS 500PF one is 4.2”.
If you don’t need to swap the foot on and off very often then the Henjar is more secure with a screwed in bolt and is considerably less expensive. If you like the convienence of quickly removing the foot then the RRS is a good option.
Unlike reports from Steve and others about the stock foot mechanism loosening, mine is rock solid when the screw is tightened and I can’t see how it would loosen enough to allow the quick release to release the foot. ...Show more →
There is the dovetail which should prevent rotation and it also blocks translation on one end. One screwhole exists in the lens and there isn't space for another.
I personally don't think it is wise to hang the lens from the foot when transporting the lens and camera. For one reason or another, people sometimes drop their lens and camera by doing that.
but this is my first Kestrel on a natural perch.
